Oral Answers to Questions

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Departmental Staff

Robert Wilson: How many staff will be working in his new office.

John Prescott: As the House will be aware, that very much depends on the role of the Deputy Prime Minister, which varies under different Prime Ministers and Governments. I will have the support of a private office, a secretariat and the Cabinet Office, as is relevant to my role. The Prime Minister today announced the responsibilities that are being given to me in my role as Deputy Prime Minister. Those details are available in the Library of the House.
	"I think the Prime Minister felt that I was able to play a role—a more central role—in Government than I could have done when I had a huge Department to run, and was deeply involved in the day-to-day activities of a Department. If I was to play a more central role then I think it was understandable that I would be removed from front-line administration of one of Whitehall's largest Departments and that is what happened."
	That is not my description of the Deputy Prime Minister's role; it is Lord Heseltine's description when he appeared before a Committee of this House in 1996. I think that it is right and I endorse his interpretation of the role.

Robert Wilson: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that, but I am not sure that he answered the question that I laid before him. What steps will he take to ensure that staff working under him are not subject to sexual harassment or bullying?

John Prescott: Staff work to the civil service code. It is their responsibility, and that of the Cabinet Office, to implement that.

Anne Snelgrove: My right hon. Friend will know that many in the Labour party and the country are very proud of the role that he has played as Deputy Prime Minister. We are pleased to hear that his Cabinet Office responsibilities —[ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is too much noise in the Chamber. Remember this; I am always able to go from one question to another if I get this behaviour. That would mean that there would be no supplementary questions and that Front-Bench Members would be denied an opportunity to ask questions.

Anne Snelgrove: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, there is a great deal of pride in the party and the country about the role that the Deputy Prime Minister has played. In particular, we are pleased to hear that his responsibilities have now been defined. Perhaps he could tell us how many of his staff will be responsible for the extended responsibilities that he is taking on.

John Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for her supportive remarks; any more would be very welcome today. Let me make it absolutely clear that those responsibilities are both international and domestic and include Cabinet Committees, far more of them than is the case with any other Deputy Prime Minister. The support role and the numbers are being worked out. Obviously, until that has been concluded, we are not able to give a precise answer.

Oliver Heald: Is not the blunt truth that the Deputy Prime Minister's principal role is, as his party chairman said, as a political broker—a sort of marriage guidance counsellor between No. 10 and No. 11? Will he assure us that the civil servants in his office will not be dragged into those squabbles, and should not the Labour party being paying the bill?

John Prescott: I recommend that the hon. Gentleman read the Select Committee reports from when Lord Heseltine was giving evidence on the definition of the Deputy Prime Minister's role. It was made absolutely clear that civil servants were used as cheerleaders under his office. That had to be changed. It is not the intention to use civil servants in that way. Let me be clear that the office that Lord Heseltine defined is exactly the one I accepted. He also said in his evidence that he chaired a number of Cabinet Committees. That is true, but I will be chairing two or three times as many as he did. He also said:
	"I have the responsibility for the presentation of Government policy".
	Within two years, we had a majority of 169—it does not sound as though his presentation worked too well.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was asked—

Regulation

Gordon Banks: What steps she plans to take to take to contribute to lifting the burden of regulation on business and industry.

Patrick McFadden: The Government are committed to a radical agenda of regulatory reform. In the March 2005 Budget, they announced a programme to lift the burden of regulation. They have engaged with business and industry and are undertaking measures to reduce unnecessary and burdensome regulation. Last but by no means least, we are legislating to make it easier to reduce unnecessary or outdated regulatory burdens on business, charities and the voluntary sector.

Gordon Banks: I thank my hon. Friend for that response and welcome him to his new position, in which I am sure that he has experienced great joy in the past few days. In my constituency of Ochil and South Perthshire in Scotland, a number of businesses are creaking under the burden of regulation. Is he being bold enough in his attempts to address that?

Patrick McFadden: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The strong and stable economy that we have enjoyed in recent years is of course essential to business growth and business health. In addition, all Government Departments have been asked to produce a plan to cut unnecessary red tape by the time of the pre-Budget report later this year. However, businesses in my hon. Friend's constituency and, indeed, throughout the country will want to know why the Conservative party voted against the Third Reading of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill yesterday. Conservative Members say that they want to reduce the burden of regulation, but when it came to action, they voted against the Bill.

William Cash: The Minister has walked into a bit of a trap, if I may say so. Given the vast amount of European over-regulation that accumulates as burdens on business, will he explain why his Bill does not include an express override of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 so that the judiciary can ensure that we do not have the burdens on business that European legislation provides?

Patrick McFadden: The hon. Gentleman must face up to the fact of our membership of the European Union, however much he dislikes it. He will also be aware that the Bill to which I referred contains measures to enable Departments not to gold-plate European directives when they are introduced in this country.

Lynda Waltho: One of the problems that I find when I visit businesses in Stourbridge is complaints about the number of regulators with which they must deal. What are the Government doing to simply the process?

Patrick McFadden: My hon. Friend might be awarethat as a result of the Hampton review, over the next three years, 31 existing national regulators will be consolidated into seven.

Jonathan Djanogly: With an average of 3,800 regulations now being imposed on British business a year, will the Minister tell us how many he proposes to abolish next year?

Patrick McFadden: Given the way in which the hon. Gentleman's party voted last night, he, by his actions, is making that process more difficult. However, happily, the Bill was passed, which will mean that when Departments come up with their simplification plans by the time of the pre-Budget report, we will have an Act in place that will make it much easier to remove outdated and unnecessary burdens on business, charities and the voluntary sector.

Angela Smith: One of the complaints that I get from businesses in my constituency is about the alleged gold-plating of EU legislation. What are the Government doing about that?

Patrick McFadden: Business is rightly concerned about that. My colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry are taking action to reduce the problem. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the Bill that was passed last night makes it easier to address the problem of gold-plating, so that when we have an agreement on a new directive in Europe, the problem will not be added to through the way in which that is implemented in this country.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Pensions

Tim Boswell: What role he has in the formulation of public sector pension policy.

John Prescott: As well as being involved in recent discussions and the Cabinet Committee on the development of pension policy this week, hon. Members will be very aware that I have been closely involved in discussions on the local government pension funds. As the Prime Minister has made clear, there are some very tough decisions to be made and difficult negotiations to be undertaken, and I will be heavily involved in them. I am, of course, aware of the need for fair and affordable pensions for public sector workers. The matter affects all Government Departments, and I shall continue to seek the best way forward across the Government as a whole.

Tim Boswell: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his reply. While I am sure that the House will understand his interest in safeguarding his personal financial affairs towards a time when he is perhaps less active than he has been, will he meanwhile examine the whole spectrum of national occupational pensions policy? Public sector pensioners can continue to enjoy a retirement age that is protected at 60, yet yesterday's news from a major clearing bank indicated that there are still significant and systemic cutbacks in the private sector. Does he really feel that that is fair? Is there not a two-tier—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Deputy Prime Minister.

John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point about the difficulties in pension policies and the range of considerable differences between the different pension policies within the public and the private sector. We will try to iron out those difficulties, come to an agreement and, I hope, achieve consensus with the Opposition as well as the other parties involved.
	I think that the hon. Gentleman was a Pensions Minister in the last Conservative Government; certainly, at one stage he was their spokesman on pensions. I will not take any lectures about pensions after 18 years of a Tory Government, who put millions of our pensioners into poverty, took away their fuel payments and brought about the most disastrous conditions. It took this Government to introduce pension credit, with today's pensioners better off than any other generation of pensioners. Some 2 million pensioners have been lifted out of poverty. We will not take any lectures from Tories about the pensioners in this country.

George Howarth: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to settlements that are both fair and affordable. Does he agree that the principle established in some schemes, whereby the scheme for new entrants is separate from the one for those already employed, is one useful way forward?

John Prescott: My right hon. Friend is right. The new negotiations have sought to differentiate between those entering a pension fund and those already in it. It is causing a bit of a concern, and it is a matter of some controversy. We will have to find answers to those difficulties. We face a range of differences, not only in Departments, but in the pensions for which they are responsible. I will do my best to see whether we can find common agreement, looking at all ways of getting a fair pension fund. However, I notice that the Opposition have stated that they would renegotiate the local government pension fund, or those that will be negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Perhaps they could make their position clear on that.

Oliver Heald: If the right hon. Gentleman wants lectures about pensions, he should talk to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who has made it very clear that when Labour came to office we had some of the best pensions provision in Europe and now we have some of the worst. What can the Deputy Prime Minister say about fairness to pensioners who pay the council tax and whose tax bills have rocketed by £250 this year when the architect of that disaster loses his job, yet still has three homes, two Jags and a fancy office in Whitehall?

John Prescott: For the record—though the hon. Gentleman would not know much about the record—I have one house and one car, which is 10 years old. I suspect that most Conservative Members have got much more than that.
	With regard to pensions, we should be concerned about asking the pensioners themselves what they think about 2 million of them being forced into poverty conditions and not having enough money to heat their homes. They are the people to make judgments. The hon. Gentleman talks about private pension funds and what my right hon. Friend said, but we had to introduce the Pension Protection Fund and provide £400 million to help those who had failed to get what they deserved from their private pension funds.

Paddy Tipping: The Deputy Prime Minister has had a long-standing involvement with the local government pension scheme. Will he use that experience in his new role to ensure that there is a common and united approach towards public sector pensions across government?

John Prescott: My hon. Friend is aware that we have had a number of discussions in the past12 months while I have been involved in the negotiations on a new local government pension scheme. He is right that there are differences in that fund and, indeed, that there is discrimination. Women are denied the possibility of having a fair pension fund, and we have had to make changes to it. Those orders are before the House. They will make things better, but the negotiations continue, as he knows. We want afair and affordable pension scheme. That is the Government's aim and that is what we are negotiating.

Ministerial Responsibilities

David Evennett: What policy responsibilities he will have in his new role.

John Prescott: The Prime Minister has asked me to oversee and co-ordinate Government policy across the full range of the domestic policy agenda. To help achieve these objectives, I will chair nine Cabinet Committees including domestic affairs, which has wide-ranging responsibilities for delivering the Government's priorities. I will also actively deputise for the Prime Minister on several other Committees of which he is the chair.
	I will be bringing Departments together to find solutions to improve the effectiveness of policy development across government. I will also be working with the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and other Departments across government to deliver the post-Kyoto environmental agenda, in particular ensuring that we deliver on our domestic environmental objectives.
	The Prime Minister has also requested me to develop my role internationally, particularly in relation to China through my chairmanship of the China task force, and to take ministerial responsibility for the British-Irish Council, which I will chair in London on2 June. The full text of the letter that I have received from the Prime Minister about my new role has been deposited in the Library.

David Evennett: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that reply; Conservative Members certainly find it most interesting. What confidence can my constituents have in his policy co-ordination, given the disastrous mess he made of the cross-departmental Thames Gateway project? My constituents wonder how he can justify a full salary for his job.

John Prescott: I certainly reject what the hon. Gentleman says about the Thames Gateway. For the first time, we are seeing major housing, infrastructure and community development there. There have also been many developments in many other communities, and we have notified the House about them. I will be judged on the basis of my record, rather than the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric. As to my salary, I have already pointed out that I am doing far more than Lord Heseltine— [Interruption.] I thought the argument was that my salary should be cut simply because I am doing less work, yet no complaints were made about Lord Heseltine at the time. I am doing far more work than he did and fully justifying my salary. The Prime Minister has given me an important job to do and I am getting on with it.

Dari Taylor: Renewal, neighbourhood renewal, regeneration and social housing have always been central to the Deputy Prime Minister's delivery in the House and the country. In his new role, may I ask whether he is still going to have a hands-on role in these areas?  [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

John Prescott: It sounds like a sixth-form public school rally. Yes, I can tell my hon. Friend that we will continue to play an active part in those matters. One of the Cabinet Committees that I will be involved with is housing and planning, whichis important in meeting the housing needs of this country. I noticed that there was a great deal of laughing about my proposal to— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to quieten down again. With all the noise in the Chamber, hon. Members are making the situation difficult for me as Speaker. I ask for the House's help and co-operation.  [Interruption.] Order. We can do without the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for North-West Durham (Hilary Armstrong), throwing in her tuppence worth.

John Prescott: I was happy to have been involved with a Department that doubled the resources going into housing and made a real contribution to improving our housing stock for more than 1.5 million people. Yesterday I attended the launch of the £60,000 house, which many people said could not be done. It is one of the best things that we have done, offering great opportunities for first-time buyers and the Government are responsible for it.

David Heath: Among the many important jobs that the Deputy Prime Minister is going to continue to engage in, does he retain any responsibility for standards of conduct and propriety in local government?

John Prescott: That is the responsibility of the Department for Communities and Local Government.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was asked—

Charities

Lee Scott: If she will make a statement on the Government's proposals for reform of charities law.

Charles Walker: What plans she has to meet the Charity Commission to discuss implementation of the Charities Bill.

Edward Miliband: The Charities Bill has been widely welcomed for the way it improves and modernises charity law. It has completed its passage in the House of Lords and will return to the House as soon as parliamentary time allows. I will meet the chair and chief executive of the Charity Commission on Monday 22 May to discuss a number of matters of mutual interest, including the Charities Bill.

Lee Scott: Will the Minister look further into the burden of VAT on charities as part of his work?

Edward Miliband: I know that the hon. Gentleman worked hard in the charities industry before entering the House, and he is a doughty fighter for charities in his own constituency. On the issue of irrecoverable VAT, it would cost £500 million to return all that VAT to charities. Two reviews have looked at the questionof whether there is a way of doing so for somecharities and not others, but they have not found a solution. The Government have done a huge amount of work on charities' tax position, and there has been a £400 million increase in the amount that they receive under Gift Aid since we introduced reforms. That is just one of the things that the Government are doing to help the charitable sector.

Charles Walker: I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box, but what is he going to do about the awful practice of chugging? Basically, £8 of every £10 goes to organisations that put hired muggers on the street to make people part with their hard-earned cash in the belief that it will go to good charities when, in fact, it goes to the organisations that have won the contract.

Edward Miliband: The hon. Gentleman asked a characteristically robust question. Everyone in the House wants to encourage charitable giving, including donations through face-to-face collections. The Charities Bill makes a difference, as it regulates the practice of collecting on the street through the Charity Commission and a system of licensing by local authorities.

Jim Devine: I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to his new post—it is a well-deserved appointment. Does he agree it is a matter of concern that people who collect for charities in supermarkets, licensed premises and restaurants sometimes produce a badge that has not been registered with the Charity Commission? What steps are he and the Government taking to improve licensing?

Edward Miliband: I thank my hon. Friend, both for his welcome and for his question. The Charities Bill will make a difference to face-to-face and street collecting. It applies less to the small collections that everyone in the House welcomes than to collections in supermarkets and elsewhere, which will be regulated for the first time.

Margaret Moran: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my real life before coming to the House I was chief executive of a registered social landlord? We were a registered charity, and were subject to regulation by no fewer than five organisations, including the slow-moving Charity Commission. Will he undertake to look at the over-regulation of registered social landlords so that we can make progress on the provision of more social housing, which the Government rightly support and promote?

Edward Miliband: I agree with my hon. Friend about the important role that housing associations and registered social landlords play in the supply of housing, and I promise to look at the issues that she raised. The Bill modernises the Charity Commission in several important ways. It will streamline the organisation and, I hope, help charities to deliver the services that we want them to deliver.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Climate Change

Bob Blizzard: What plans he has to visit Latin America to discuss the post-Kyoto climate change agenda.

John Prescott: My hon. Friend may be aware that I have visited a number of Latin American countries over the past few years, and I have held discussions with the presidents of Brazil, Argentina and Mexico. I have also held discussions with the presidents of Venezuela and Colombia. Most notably, I held a number of meetings with President Cardoso of Brazil during the Kyoto negotiations. More recently, in March this year, I welcomed President Lula of Brazil during his state visit to the United Kingdom. I have an invitation to return to Brazil and I would of course be happy to visit, should my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister ask me to do so.

Bob Blizzard: In his role representing the country internationally, may I encourage my right hon. Friend to visit more Latin American countries? Given our policies on common agricultural policy reform and fair trade, we are their best EU partner, but we need to follow through so that they are aware of that. Instead, President Chirac visits them, even though he spends a great deal of time trying to block the reforms that would benefit them.

John Prescott: I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend said. The House is well aware of the work that he has undertaken as the chair of the all-party groups on Latin America and Brazil, and I am particularly grateful for the advice that they have given me before my visits to Brazil and Latin America. Those countries will play a major part in the forthcoming global negotiations on trade, climate change and, indeed, the CAP. We will do all that we can—I am sure that the Prime Minister himself will do so—to work directly with their leaders to achieve the solutions that will be good not only for this country and Latin America but for the world economy.

Andrew Robathan: Does not the Deputy Prime Minister think that when he meets the leaders of Latin American countries, they will treat him with the same degree of ridicule as does the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Greg Hands.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was asked—

Ministerial Code

Greg Hands: What her Department's role is in monitoring compliance with the ministerial code.

Hilary Armstrong: The ministerial code was reissued in July 2005, taking account of comments made by the Public Administration Committee and the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Section 1 of the ministerial code sets out Ministers' responsibilities in relation to the code.

Greg Hands: The Government make provisions for the enforcement of standards and ethics at most levels of government, from parish councillors all the way up. Why is it that under the ministerial code, the only people not subject to independent outside scrutiny are Government Ministers?

Hilary Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman is a new Member of the House. He may not remember that under previous Administrations, there was no ministerial code.  [Interruption.] There was no ministerial code, as such. There were questions about Ministers' behaviour, but they were not published and nobody knew what those questions were until 1992. In 1997 we published the ministerial code. As from 23 March, Sir John Bourn has been appointed the independent adviser on Ministers' interests. This, too, is an innovation, and Sir John will provide advice to Ministers and Permanent Secretaries on the handling of Ministers' private interests, as set out in section 5 of the ministerial code.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Piara S Khabra: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 May.

Tony Blair: Before I list my engagements, I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our condolences to the families of Private Joseva Lewaicei and Private Adam Morris, who were killed in Iraq on Saturday. We owe them a great debt of gratitude and we pay tribute to their dedication and their courage in the service of their country.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Piara S Khabra: Does the Prime Minister agree that the Human Rights Act 1998 imposes an enormous duty on the state to protect its citizens against terrorism and crime? In the light of this clear duty, does he also agree that in making decisions in such cases, judges oughtto be aware of the wider interests of the public, and that human rights lobbyists should have a better understanding of their role in society?

Tony Blair: I agree with my hon. Friend, but it is important to emphasise that because it incorporates the European convention on human rights, the Human Rights Act allows for a balance between the rights of the individual and the wider collective rights of society. If that balance is interpreted wrongly, we must look at that. It is always open to the House to decide that we will legislate, irrespective of the Human Rights Act. It is perfectly possible, both under the European convention and under the Human Rights Act, for that balance to be more sensible. Most people would agree, for example, that if someone is inciting hatred and inciting people to kill others in this country, it is absurd if we cannot return them to their own country.

David Cameron: On behalf of the Opposition, may I add our sympathies to what the Prime Minister said about the soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq? Our thoughts should be with their families for what they have done on our behalf.
	Two weeks ago the Prime Minister said that automatic deportation would apply to any foreign national
	"convicted of an imprisonable offence".—[ Official Report,3 May 2006; Vol. 445, c. 960.]
	Last week he said it would apply to those actually imprisoned. This week the Home Secretary said that automatic deportation would now apply only to foreign nationals serving a "significant" jail term. Which is it?

Tony Blair: It is exactly as I explained when I first answered the right hon. Gentleman. It applies only to people who have gone to prison, which is why we are talking about foreign prisoners. If, for example, someone is sent to prison for a very short space of time and they have been in this country for a long period of time, then the presumption of automatic deportation would not apply, but in the vast bulk of cases, as has been explained, there will be an automatic presumption to deport, and the vast bulk of those people will, indeed, be deported. In my view, those people should be deported, irrespective of any claim that they have that the country to which they are returning may not be safe. That is why it is important that we consider legislating, if necessary, to ensure that such an automatic presumption applies.

David Cameron: We have gone from "all prisoners" to "all significant prisoners", and now we have got the "vast bulk"—the Prime Minister is making it up as he goes along. That is an example of a Government in complete paralysis. Let me give him another example: he has said that the Human Rights Act 1998 has led to an abuse of common sense and that he will review it, and a few moments ago he said that perhaps the House of Commons will legislate. Three years ago, however, in January 2003, he announced a review of the operation of the Act—what happened to that review?

Tony Blair: It was precisely because we believed it important to rebalance the system that we introduced, for example, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which allowed us to take money off those suspected of being involved in drug dealing. It was for precisely that reason that we introduced the antisocial behaviour legislation. And it was for precisely that reason that we introduced the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which allowed us to impose mandatory minimum sentences on people carrying illegal firearms. What those things have in common is that the Conservative party either opposed them or refused to vote for them. Yes; we will make sure that our human rights legislation does not get in the way of commonsense legislation to protect our country. However, when we have tried to legislate to toughen up the law, the Liberal Democrats have opposed all the measures and the right hon. Gentleman has opposed most of them.

David Cameron: We have been telling the Prime Minister about the problems with the Human Rights Act for years. He keeps announcing reviews, but nothing ever happens. I asked him about the 1998 Act, but he did not say a word about it, so let me give him another example of Government in paralysis. The head of the civil service has said that the immigrationand nationality directorate has been "performing particularly well", yet the head of enforcement and removals at that directorate says that he has not got the faintest idea of how many people are in Britain illegally. When the head of enforcement and removals was asked how many illegal asylum seekers were not removed, he said that he did not know. When he was asked how many people have been told to leave the country by his department, he said that he simply could not say. Does the Prime Minister agree that after nine years in charge that is just unacceptable?

Tony Blair: "There are no official estimates of the number of illegal immigrants into the United Kingdom. By its very nature,illegal immigration is difficult to measure and any estimates would be highly speculative—[ Official Report, 20 April 1995;Vol. 258, c. 328.]

George Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman is quoting Michael Howard.

Tony Blair: Yes, exactly—Michael Howard. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman about the current situation in our asylum system: the number of unfounded claims is down; since 1997, the number of asylum seekers is down; all asylum seekers are now fingerprinted and issued with identity cards; and there are now three times as many removals as there were in 1997.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right that it is necessary to control illegal immigration better, and there are two things that we need to do. First, we need to introduce electronic borders, which we have introduced for some 26 routes and which we need to roll out across the entire country. Secondly, we need identity cards both for foreign nationals and for British nationals. If we want to track people coming in and out of our country and to know the identity of people who are here,then that is what we have to do. The truth is that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to support any of that. His spokesman has said that there have been43 Criminal Justice Acts and that not one of them has done anything to help. Let me say what is in those Acts, including the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which the right hon. Gentleman voted against: the early removal scheme that would allow foreign national prisoners to be deported at the halfway point in their sentence; tougher sentences for murder and sexual and violent crimes; measures to tackle jury-nobbling; allowing hearsay evidence in court; a five-year minimum custodial sentence for unauthorised possession of firearms; and everything to do with antisocial behaviour. So when we introduce the next load of measures to help to deal with this problem, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will support them.

David Cameron: I can sum up the Prime Minister's performance in one word—rattled. If the problem is the system he has inherited rather than the Ministers he has put in place, why did he sack his Home Secretary last week? Whether it is deporting dangerous criminals, sorting out the mess of the Human Rights Act, or dealing with illegal immigration, this is a Government in paralysis. The Prime Minister made the criminal justice system a top priority, yet he said this week that it is the Department that is
	"most distant from what reasonable people want".
	Why, after four Home Secretaries, 43 pieces of legislation, and nine years, should anyone believe that he is the right man to sort it out?

Tony Blair: For the simple reason that, as I have just pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman in stating the facts on asylum and immigration and on the criminal justice legislation, there are changes that have made a real difference. But yes, I agree that we have to do much more. That is precisely why we need the new measures such as identity cards and border controls that allow us to do something about it.
	If we are comparing records on crime, let me just say to the right hon. Gentleman that under this Government, according to the British crime survey, overall crime is down, domestic burglary and vehicle theft are down, and police numbers are at a record high. When he was in the Home Office and the Conservatives were in office, crime doubled. I do not say that we have got everything right—of course not; we have got to do far more. What I do say, however, is that every time the tough measures that the right hon. Gentleman goes out and tells the media he wants are introduced here, they are opposed by him and his party. Next time we introduce them, perhaps he will put his vote where his mouth is.

Barbara Keeley: A recent report on levels of disposable income showed that this Government's policies on tax and benefits are helping to boost the income of poorer households. In my constituency, that means up to £40 a week for two out of five pensioners and up to £50 a week extra for a third of working-age households with children. Although all work on equality is important, does my right hon. Friend agree that this work on reducing household income inequality is one of our most important goals?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right. It is important, therefore, that we continue with the measures that have seen big rises of, I think, 25 per cent. in real terms in child benefit and in the working families tax credit, which has helped many families to get into work and ensured that they have a decent living income. Somewhere in the region of 2 million pensioners have been lifted out of acute hardship. That has been achieved by a combination of measures—helping with fuel poverty, as well as the pension credit. It is important to realise that, even though there are still too many people in our country living in poverty, the situation is a world away from where it was in 1997.

Menzies Campbell: May I associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the expressions of condolence and sympathy for those who have died and been injured in Iraq? May I ask the Prime Minister this: will British forces have been withdrawn from Iraq at the time when he leaves office?

Tony Blair: British forces should remain in Iraq until the job is done. Incidentally, they are there in Iraq—this is important to emphasise—and have been there for three years with full United Nations authority and with the consent of the first-ever democratically elected Iraqi Government. They are doing a magnificent job there. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude. That country wants its democracy to work, and that is why it is important that they stay until the Iraqi forces are capable of engaging with their own security themselves.

Menzies Campbell: By the time the Prime Minister leaves office, will Guantanamo Bay, which the Attorney-General has described as unacceptable, have been closed down?

Tony Blair: It might not surprise the right hon. and learned Gentleman to learn that I am not personally responsible for closing Guantanamo Bay. I agree that it is an anomaly that should be closed; I have said that all along. However, it is important to recognise that in Iraq and Afghanistan we are fighting a battle against the same forces of terrorism that want to disrupt our way of life here and to kill people. This is a global struggle, and it is right that Britain stand firm with its allies in engaging in that struggle and defeating the enemies of democracy and freedom.

Jim Sheridan: My right hon. Friend might be aware of the recent decision by the Law Lords to limit the amount of compensation for workers suffering from asbestos-related diseases and to their families. That decision will be devastating for thousands of workers and families throughout the United Kingdom. Will my right hon. Friend, or the appropriate Minister, agree to meet a small delegation of like-minded colleagues to explore the options for dealing with this outrageous decision taken by people who do not live in the real world?

Tony Blair: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and I would be very happy to meet him and his delegation to discuss the matter.

Michael Weir: Given that the Prime Minister has decided to bounce the country into building new nuclear power stations even before his sham of an energy review has reported, and before we have found any solution to the problem of disposing of historic, let alone new, nuclear waste, are the Scottish communities that figured in the last Nirex report now back in the frame as possible nuclear dumps? Will this be the Prime Minister's legacy to Scotland?

Tony Blair: Obviously, we have to dispose of the existing nuclear waste in any event. However, if we are to address the energy security needs of the United Kingdom—including Scotland—we have to be prepared to take the necessary decisions to ensure that we do not end up entirely dependent on foreign imports of gas. That would not be sensible, in my view. I do not believe that nuclear power is the sole answer. Of course renewables are important, as are energy efficiency and carbon sequestration. All the measures that we are taking will assist us, but we have to debate very seriously whether we need to replace nuclear power stations to guarantee the future energy needs of this country; otherwise, we would be engaging in a collective dereliction of our duty.

Robert Flello: I understand that my right hon. Friend is meeting a delegation from the hospice movement later today. Will he bear in mind the essential and excellent work done by the Treetops hospice in my constituency, run by the Donna Louise Trust? Perhaps he could find time in his busy schedule to meet representatives of that hospice, preferably in the hospice.

Tony Blair: I pay tribute to the work of the Treetops hospice in my hon. Friend's constituency. I also understand the concern across the hospice movement about the changes in relation to lottery funding and other issues. I am meeting people from the movement today, and I hope that the Government will be in a position to say what we can do to try to meet those concerns as soon as possible.

David Cameron: In January, I asked the Prime Minister to consider setting interim targets to ensure that we met the goal of getting treatment to all sufferers of HIV/AIDS by 2010. At the time, he said that that would be difficult because other countries needed to take action as well. Will he confirm that the Government are now supporting the campaign to set interim targets? Now that we have domestic consensus on the issue, will he tell the House what progress is being made internationally?

Tony Blair: The whole point is that this needs to be done on an international basis, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would accept. I think that there is to be a meeting at the United Nations shortly, and we need to try to agree how we should stage the delivery of as near as possible universal access to HIV/AIDS treatment by 2010. The whole purpose of what we are trying to do is to ensure not only that our money will help to deliver that target but that there is a co-ordinated effort right across the international community. Fortunately, the auspices for that are reasonably good.

David Cameron: I welcome that reply, but the point is to try to set an interim target for 2008, to give us a better prospect of hitting the overall target in 2010. Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the real challenges is to help children with HIV, who need access to specialist paediatric drugs? At present, there is little demand for such drugs in the west, but there is a big demand in Africa. What steps is the Prime Minister going to take to talk to the drugs companies to ensure wider provision of these vital treatments?

Tony Blair: Again, what we are trying to do is to get the right buy-in from the pharmaceutical and drug companies, which are prepared to work with us to try to make sure that the treatments are available as cheaply as possible. Over the next few years, we are contributing in the region of £1.5 billion to tackle AIDS, TB and malaria, which is a huge commitment from this country, and rightly so. If we can set staging posts for universal access by 2010, we will do that. The important thing, however, is that that be done on a collective basis. It is important, too, that we do not forget the other two components involved in helping Africa, which are decisions that will be taken this year: first, the 20,000 peacekeepers that we need to have trained by the end of the year, which will be dramatically important in places such as Sudan; and secondly, the World Trade Organisation deal. That development package is of essential importance to the future of Africa. The good thing that is happening now in the international community is that those issues are being considered together and not in isolation.

Khalid Mahmood: One of my right hon. Friend's predecessors, Harold Wilson, was a great advocate of HP sauce, produced in Aston. The company was taken over last year by Heinz, which is now threatening the livelihood of 120 workers in Aston, Birmingham. In relation to the discussions that I am having with Heinz directors, will my right hon. Friend give a commitment to the House that he will provide the support that those workers need to ensure that those manufacturing jobs are retained, which the area deserves?

Tony Blair: I pay tribute to the Heinz workers in my hon. Friend's constituency and in many others constituencies in the country. I will give any support that I can to my hon. Friend in his efforts to preserve their jobs.

Richard Spring: Given the universal opposition in Suffolk and elsewhere, including from the police authority and the police themselves, will the Prime Minister instruct his new Home Secretary to put a stop at once to the uncosted, unwelcome and completely undesirable regionalisation of our police force?

Tony Blair: There must be a proper process of examination, I am afraid, to make sure that we get the most effective police services in our country. It is generally accepted that it is right to review the service boundaries for all the reasons that we know. As I have repeated often in the House, the reason for doing that arises from a report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary which said that it was necessary to conduct that review. However, I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will take account of the representations made to him.

Mike Hall: This morning, our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) are at the Vauxhall plant trying to persuade the owners to make the necessary investment in the company so that the next generation of Vauxhall Motors can be built in Ellesmere Port. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to make sure that the Government do everything that they can to help that process?

Tony Blair: First, the announcement of the loss of jobs at Ellesmere Port is deeply disappointing. I commit the Government and the Northwest Regional Development Agency to work with the company and the trade unions to support those facing redundancy. As my hon. Friend rightly implies, the key campaign is to get the new Astra model built at Ellesmere Port. The Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry are at Ellesmere Port today, and I will seek an early opportunity to talk to GM's chief executive, Rick Wagoner, to put the case for Ellesmere Port and to offer any UK Government assistance that is appropriate. The work force there are magnificent, they do a great job, I know that they would be worthy of securing the new Astra model, and I very much hope that they do so.

John Maples: The Prime Minister says that our forces in Iraq are doing a wonderful job, and, of course, they are—we all acknowledge that. However, the Saddam Hussein regime was overthrown three years ago, yet the violence is getting worse all the time, even in the south of the country. Our forces are often the target of terrorist attacks, and the very presence of coalition forces is used by terrorists as an excuse for their appalling violence. Would not a timetable for an orderly withdrawal of coalition forces, say, over the next 12 months, force the Iraqi Government and Iraqi citizens to come to terms with this problem and take control of their own destiny?

Tony Blair: The hon. Gentleman put his finger on it when he said that the presence of coalition forces was being used as an excuse by the terrorist groups. It is important to understand that the Iraqi Government which I hope will be formed in the next few days will be, for the first time, a genuine unity Government. In other words, they will include as part of a coalition across all the different groups in the country representatives of the Shi'a, Sunni and Kurdish people. If that Government are in place, obviously the whole of Iraq can take a more benign path and escape from its current difficulties.
	The purpose of both the militia in the south of the country and those who are still fighting, along with the al-Qaeda people, in the centre and the north is to stop that democratic Government functioning. I think that we must work with the new Government once they have been formed. Of course it has always been our strategy to withdraw when the Iraqis wish us to do so—when they are capable of handling their security themselves. We need to sit down with the new Government once they have been formed, and work out how we can ensure that the rest of the build-up of the Iraqi forces takes place so that of course, in time, we can withdraw. That is the very purpose of what we are trying to do.
	It is important to realise one thing, however. The purpose of these groups—who know perfectly well that our desire is not to stay there, but to leave once the job is done—is to prevent the country from securing a broad coalition of unity across all the groups so that Iraq can be governed properly. In my view, it is the Iraqi Government who are the key to determination of the timetable, not the terrorist groups.

Patrick Hall: I have to tell my right hon. Friend that many of my constituents who hear the clamour and speculation about his future are concerned about when it is time to move on. They want to know if and when they will be able to move on, and move out of inadequate accommodation into decent, affordable, quality homes in the Bedford area. Does my right hon. Friend recognise their concerns, and does he agree that increasing the availability and quantity of decent homes is one of the key and serious tasks of this Labour Government?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is completely right. If I may say so, that is another example of the decisions that must be made for the long-term future of the country. It is really no use people complaining about the affordability of housing in the south if they then say that no new homes should be built and there should be no development. That development will happen in a planned way, but it would be of great assistance, frankly, if the opposition parties agreed that we will have to build more homes in the south if we are to relieve the pressure on housing and allow families—particularly younger families—to get their feet on the first rungs of the housing ladder.
	If we add that to the measures that encourage brownfield development, the affordable house—the £60,000 house launched by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister—and other measures such as shared equity, and put all those measures together in a proper package, we shall be able to deal with the problem. But we must be prepared to make the tough decision to say that we will need to build homes in the south.

Ian Paisley: The Prime Minister will be aware that the Assembly met on Monday. He may not be aware that at that meeting, every Member of the Assembly stood for one minute's silence in memory of the young Ballymena man, Michael McIlveen, who has been grievously murdered. Today his family are laying his body to rest, and I suggest that our thoughts and prayers should be with them.
	Does the Prime Minister know that there is a strange significance to this particular murder? Those who are charged cross the religious divide: they are Protestants and Roman Catholics. That seems to me a very strange thing. I feel that the Prime Minister should help the police at this time. The chief of police in Ballymena has made a statement saying that the situation may change, and that Protestants could be attacked in the same way. In order to prevent any retaliation, will the Prime Minister back the police by giving them the men who are needed to do the job, which is a very difficult job to do?

Tony Blair: First, I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and join him in sending our condolences to the family of the young boy who was murdered. I also thank him for the responsible way in which he personally has handled the issue. It is very significant that there was a minute's silence that stretched right across the community in the Assembly. Yes, I will certainly give the police every support in the work that they do.

Mark Durkan: Further to that reply, on reading the messages left at the McIlveen family home and at the scene of the attack, I was struck by the fact that young people were not only sharing their grief and shock, but were desperate also to share hope. The sight of so many young people in Celtic and Rangers jerseys emblazoned with Michael's nickname has been a great comfort to his family. Should it not also be a spur to all politicians and an inspiration to older generations, who have tolerated, excused or indulged sectarianism for too long?

Tony Blair: I agree totally with what my hon. Friend says; he is absolutely right. Of course, the very best and most significant thing that could be done to demonstrate that people are working across the communities is if we can get devolved government back up and working again in Northern Ireland, with everybody committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. What my hon. Friend is saying is the future of Northern Ireland; what that appalling murder represents is, hopefully, the past.

Pete Wishart: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to reassure his Labour colleagues that it will be he who will lead the Scottish election campaign next year, and from the front; that it will be his face that will appear on all the literature; and that he will take full advantage of his personal popularity to put the case for new nuclear build? If he does that, he will have my overwhelming support and that of my hon. Friends.

Tony Blair: It is very kind of the hon. Gentleman to give me that ringing endorsement. One thing that I and my colleagues will be pointing out is that, as I understand it, the Scottish National party manifesto for the Scottish Parliament says that it would introduce an independence Bill in the first 100 days. Is that right?

Pete Wishart: indicated assent.

Tony Blair: Well, we will certainly be making a very great deal of that between now and the Scottish elections.

Water Shortages

Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs an urgent question on water shortages.  [Interruption.]

Ian Pearson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly? The business of the House still continues.

Ian Pearson: The UK has seen below average rainfall for 19 months. In particular, the south-east has been much drier than during the notable drought of1974 to 1976. The Environment Agency believes that the droughtin the south-east has the potential to be the worst for 100 years. Water planning is based on the principle that each water company has a water resource plan looking ahead 25 years. Water companies also have a drought plan setting out how they will continue to meet their duties during a water shortage.
	I recognise the public concern about leakage rates. Ofwat, the economic regulator, sets targets for leakage and over the past 10 years, leakage rates have reduced by 30 per cent. However, there is more to be done, particularly by some companies. Since privatisation, water companies have invested £55 billion in water and sewerage assets, and more than £3.5 billion in 2004-05 alone.
	As the House will be aware, water companies in the south-east have introduced hosepipe and sprinkler bans to manage the drought situation. The recent decision to approve the Sutton and East Surrey Water drought order application is the next step beyond a hosepipe ban. I am considering the independent inspector's reports following the hearings on the drought order applications made by Southern Water and Mid Kent Water.

Peter Ainsworth: May I begin by congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his new post and by thanking him for that statement? The Opposition do not blame the Government for the weather, even though some of my colleagues would like us to. Many of us will remember the last Labour Minister for drought, who rapidly became the Minister for floods, so we accept that these things are indeed unpredictable, and we recognise that most of the water supply problems that we face, particularly in the south-east, are mainly the result of below average winter rainfall.
	However, I remind the Minister of a statement that the Labour party made before the 1997 general election:
	"Labour is determined to see significant improvements in the way the water industry serves local people, contributes to its communities and looks after the environment."
	Nine years on, that looks like another failed ambition. Many people are bemused and angered by the fact that in Britain in the 21st century they face restrictions on their water use and the threat of standpipes.
	Does the Minister agree that the task of urging people to use water wisely is not helped by the fact that the water industry loses more than 3.5 billion litres of water a day in leaks? Is he completely satisfied that all water companies are addressing the pressing issue of renewing our water supply infrastructure with the sense of urgency and the use of technology that people have a right to expect? Does he accept that it is reasonable for people to ask why they should do their bit, if the water companies do not seem to be doing theirs? Is he satisfied that a sufficiently robust sanctions regime is in place to prevent and control leaks, especially given that Thames Water has missed its target for fixing leaks for five years in a row now?
	Does the Minister agree with Ken Livingstone, who yesterday said that compulsory metering was "inevitable"? If so, over what time frame does he think that those meters should be introduced? How does he square that with the statement made before the 1997 general election that
	"Labour is opposed to forcing people to install water meters"?
	Is that still Labour policy? If not, and the Government are considering compulsory water metering, what measures is he considering to ensure that poorer families and vulnerable groups are not penalised by a compulsory metering regime?
	What is the Government's policy on the construction of new reservoirs in the south-east? Is it not the height of folly, and seriously irresponsible, for the Government to press ahead with plans for millions of new homes in the south-east, an area already suffering from water stress, without having first put in place the infrastructure to support them? We all accept the need for more affordable housing, but nobody—least of all the people who would move into the new homes—would thank the Government if they were subjected to regular restrictions on their water use. Will the Government therefore support the Bill introduced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), which would require an assessment of the adequacy of water supplies to be made before the construction of new homes or commercial developments?
	What plans do the Government have in place to ensure that supply matches demand, if we have another dry winter next year? Do the Government have any plans in that regard? What action do the Government have in mind to support those businesses that are likely to suffer from the consequences of drought orders? What assessment has the Minister made of the number of businesses that may face closure as a result of the restrictions he has sanctioned? What discussions has he had with major sporting venues, such as Wimbledon, Lords, race courses and golf courses about the likely impact on them of the imposition of drought orders?
	We do not blame the Government for the weather, but we and the public will certainly hold them to account if they fail to take all action necessary to avert the worst effects of water shortage this year and in the future.

Ian Pearson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words of welcome. I do indeed follow an illustrious predecessor in Denis Howell, who was the Member of Parliament for Small Heath. I am also responsible for floods, and if I am as successful in encouraging rainfall as he was, I will be delighted.
	I welcome the realism shown by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth). The situation is principally the result of below average rainfall for 19 months, so groundwater levels are very low. Although reservoir levels in the south-east are not that bad, more than70 per cent. of the area's water comes from groundwater, and the Environment Agency's recent report shows those levels to be very low.
	The Government recognise that there are too many leaks and we also believe that some water companies need to up their game. However, Sutton and East Surrey Water has met its leakage targets and the headline figures for 2004-05 show a reduction in leakage rates from 2003-04. All but three water companies met their leakage targets.
	I note what the hon. Gentleman said about compulsory metering, which is not Government policy but which clearly has environmental benefits. The evidence suggests that it reduces domestic consumption by about 10 per cent., so it is worth serious consideration. All of us have to do our bit, water companies and consumers in the south-east alike. We need to think about the simple things, such as ensuring that the tap is turned off when we brush out teeth and that washing machines are fully loaded. Collectively, simple measures like that can have a major effect.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about new reservoirs. He will know that five new reservoirs are planned for the south-east, and that three others in the area are to be expanded. The region's particular geography means that, traditionally, it has relied on groundwater far more than other parts of the UK. Reservoirs can be part of the solution in the south-east, but they will never be the whole solution and especially not in the short term, as of course the normal planning procedures apply. That is why we have drought orders.
	The hon. Gentleman raised an important point to do with new housing developments in the south-east, and I shall explain how the system works. Water companies produce 25-year water resource plans that take account of future housing need, where that is clearly defined, and I am informed that the plans currently take account of 900,000 extra houses in the south-east. The regulator has to agree investment plans with the individual companies, based on the water resource forecasts. Those investment plans have been agreed up to 2010, but the next review of water prices and investment plans begins in 2009 and will take account of all housing development planned up to that year.
	Lastly, the hon. Gentleman asked various questions about the impact on businesses and sporting venues. I emphasise that so far we have granted one drought order, and we expect the company concerned to implement it proportionately and sensitively. We do not know how long the present situation will last, but it is in everyone's interest to take action now. If there is a message to people in the south-east, it is that they should use water wisely in the current circumstances.

Paddy Tipping: This year, water and sewerage charges are up 5.5 per cent on last year. The Minister was reluctant to name poor performers, but will he have discussions with Ofwat about the performance of Thames Water, and of Severn Trent Water, the company that serves his constituency? Will he ensure that customers, who are paying substantially more this year, get a decent and improved service?

Ian Pearson: I shall certainly meet the regulator regularly, as it is important to ensure that customers get a fair a deal. That is what Ofwat is about. The fact that Thames Water has consistently missed its leakage targets for a long time is a serious problem that I intend to discuss with the company and the regulator.

Christopher Huhne: As the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) has already said, this is a weather issue so the Opposition would be ill-advised to hold the Government solely account for that. As the Minister said, there have been many months—he said 19; my information was 17—of below average rainfall in the south-east. Has he reached an assessment of whether that involves a change in the trend or is it in the normal run of weather events? The Department is responsible for assessing the impact of climate change, so in the light of possible climate change and of what appears to be a recurring pattern of extremely dry summers in the south-east, is it time to reassess the five extra reservoirs already planned for the area?
	The hon. Member for East Surrey quoted from the Labour manifesto of 1997. Is the Minister happy that Ofwat has required adequate investment? In some companies, for example Southern Water, leakage is still running at 27 per cent. after nine years. That is unacceptable and requires rather greater urgency from the Government and the companies than seems so far to have been exhibited.
	As many as 20 years ago plans for a national water grid were mooted. Are they being reconsidered in the context of current drought orders, hosepipe bans and water shortages? We know that water metering has a clear impact in reducing use. Not only has Ken Livingstone backed water metering, as the hon. Member for East Surrey mentioned, but a possibly even more authoritative body, the Consumer Council for Water, has backed compulsory metering in affected parts of the south-east. Will the Government consider, not a general plan for metering, but at least a plan for metering in affected areas?
	The Minister mentioned the Government's commitment to extra house building in the south-east: 580,000 houses over the next 20 years. Is not it time to recognise that the infrastructural needs of that housing have not been put in place ahead of the new build? We have had new build and we are still suffering not merely water shortages but considerable problems with drainage and sewerage, which are another aspect of the water companies' responsibilities. Will the Minister tell us whether the Department will seriously consider putting a block on development in the most affected areas until it is clear that the infrastructure is in place? Finally, does the Minister agree with the Mayor of London's turning down a planning request for a desalination plant that would ease some of the difficulties in the area?

Ian Pearson: On climate change, I am informed by experts that droughts tend to go in cycles, but I do not think anybody knows what the full impact of climate change is likely to be on our environment and whether we are likely to see more sudden occurrences of drought or floods. We need to keep the situation under close review.
	In the planning framework, water resource plans are based on looking at the worst drought scenario in 1993-94 and assuming that, with hosepipe and non-essential usage bans, a month's supply would be left. That equates to a one in a hundred years occurrence. Unfortunately, it seems that there is a prospect of such an occurrence this summer. We all hope that that will not be the case but we cannot guarantee it.
	I have already answered the questions about leakage and metering, but I emphasise that more can be done about leakages. There is an economic leakage rate, but it is important that we set leakage targets and that they are met by water companies. Where they are not met we want to know why and, ultimately, the regulator will use the powers at his discretion.
	There has been an increase in metering, which covers about 27 per cent. of the total household population. It has been rising in recent years and I expect that trend to continue, but we should not force meters on people—certainly not unless there is a water scarcity. There are clear environmental benefits from introducing water metering, and we as a Government need to look at how those benefits can be realised.
	I have already commented on the infrastructure needs of housing development in the south-east. I believe that that is being taken into account in the 25-year planning process, but I will undertake to look into that again, just to ensure that I am personally assured that those plans adequately reflect new-build commitments. It is important we are joined up as a Government, and I will endeavour to ensure that that happens.
	Lastly, the idea of a national water grid has been bandied around for at least 40 years. It is not a very environmentally friendly measure, given that water is a pretty bulky supply and the energy requirements needed to pump water around parts of the country, let alone the excavation costs that would be required, make its use prohibitive and a non-starter, but the idea resurfaces from time to time. I do not get any sense that water companies are planning on that basis, but they have done some significant work over the past 10 years to improve regional grids, so that they can co-operate and share scarce water resources, which has been very beneficial.

Michael Howard: My constituency is not only subject to a hosepipe ban but is in the process of being subjected to compulsory water metering, so why will the Minister not recognise the facts and accept that the Labour party has now abandoned the pledge in respect of compulsory water metering that it gave prior to the 1997 election? Does he agree that more needs to be done to help those who are least well off to meet their water charges, particularly under a metering regime, both by introducing additional measures and by giving greater publicity to the water efficiency measures that are already in place?

Ian Pearson: I am certainly very aware of the fact that there is compulsory metering in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency, because of the water scarcity there. Certainly, the water company believes that that is a win-win situation for the consumer: less water will be used overall, because people will be more careful in monitoring their water usage, and that will reduce customers' bills in turn as well. That is one way in which water can be more affordable, but a range of Government support measures are available at the moment, and we certainly want to ensure that he encourages his constituents to take advantage of them.

Phyllis Starkey: Could the Minister confirm that new house building accounts for only 1 per cent. of the housing stock and that, although we need to ensure that new houses are water efficient, it is much more effective to concentrate on the existing housing stock and to encourage its increased water efficiency? Will he look again at measures to encourage people to upgrade the water efficiency of their houses? Does he agree that it is perfectly possible to meet housing need in the south-east and still respect the need to improve water efficiency?

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is absolutely right to say that the vast majority of the housing stock for 2030 is already in place in the United Kingdom and that new-build plans account for only a tiny fraction of the potential additional water usage in the future. We need to focus on water efficiency in households, just as we need to focus more on energy efficiency. There is a range of ways in which consumers can use water more wisely—for example, with dual-flush toilets. The simple fact is that new house development will be far more water and energy- efficient than the current housing stock. The more that we can do to bring the current housing stock up to the best environmental standards for both health and water efficiency reasons, the better for all concerned.

Andrew MacKay: Even so, does the Minister accept that my constituents will find it inconceivable that the water companies can cope with the huge number of extra houses being foisted on the south-east when they cannot cope at all with the current drought? No one will believe him.

Ian Pearson: In that case, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can explain the situation better to his constituents, because there is a clear difference between a short-term drought and the long-term planning of water resources. We need to ensure that that long-term planning is effective and takes account of new housing development, but we also need to consider water saving measures as well and to use water wisely. His constituents need to use water wisely, but they need not be afraid that new housing development will cause them massive water problems in the future, because I am confident that the planning system can fully take into account future housing needs.

Kelvin Hopkins: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new post.
	Reports suggest that leakages in Britain are among the worst in Europe, and perhaps only two countries, one of which is Bulgaria, have a worse record. Is that not simply a consequence of a failure to invest by the water industry over a long period? Is it not a direct consequence of the Tories' privatisation of the water sector? Have not the private companies been simply sweating—I use that word advisedly—the assets built up over generations of public investment before they were privatised? Is it not time that the state again took a direct role in water supply, to guarantee sufficient and secure water provision for the future?

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend and I must agree to disagree on some of that, but we do agree that there have been decades of under-investment in the water industry, stemming back way before privatisation, because the public sector was not that good at investing in long-term infrastructure in the water industry. One of the problems with the public sector is that there are always more pressing investment needs—whether schools or hospitals—than long-term improvements to sewerage pipes and the water supply. The simple fact is that, since privatisation, there has been £55 billion-worth of investment, primarily funded by the water companies, which has led to a major improvement. Most of the water companies have made significant reductions in leakage rates. More can be done, but we must still face the fact that we were one of the first countries in the world to introduce water and sewerage systems, so our system is older than anyone else's and it is still in need of repair and further investment, which will come from the water companies as part of their future investment plans.

Jacqui Lait: Could the Minister confirm that he said that, if the current weather pattern continues, London and the south-east face standpipes in 100 days? In those circumstances, can he tell us what discussions he is already having with the water companies about ensuring that the vulnerable have access to water and that those people who live in the 24-hour economy can get water from standpipes whenever they need it?

Ian Pearson: No, I cannot confirm what the hon. Lady says, but I can quote the best assessment available from the Environment Agency:
	"An exceptionally hot and dry summer like 1976 would give extremely low reservoir levels by the autumn, with a risk of standpipes in London. It should be possible for Thames Water to avoid standpipes, but much depends on the effectiveness of demand management measures".
	That is the situation at the moment. We do not know what the weather patterns will be over the next few months. The Met Office forecasts pretty much average rainfall for this summer, but if we get a summer like 1976, there are likely to be difficulties. However, it would be unwise to say that we will have standpipes in a certain number of days, because that simply is not the case judged from where we stand today.

Richard Ottaway: Does the Minister accept that there is widespread concern in my constituency, which is bang in the middle of the Sutton and East Surrey Water catchment area, over the imposition of a drought order? He says that he has asked the company to apply the order sensitively. Will he explain how one applies a drought order sensitively? Does he not accept that if, say, a car wash is still allowed to operate, people who drive past it will say, "Well, if that's operating, why on earth should I cut down on my consumption at home?"?

Ian Pearson: I appreciate the difficulties that some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents may face as a result of the drought order. That is why I looked very carefully at the inspectors' report, talked to the Environment Agency and had a conversation with the company last week to convince myself that the order was absolutely necessary. I am afraid that it is. If we are to protect essential supplies to consumers, and particularly to vulnerable consumers, we need to allow the company to take action. However, we need to be clear—I have been clear in what I have said to the company—that we want to see the maximum water saving for the minimum impact on the consumer. That has got to be the objective and I am sure that that is how the company will want to apply the order in these circumstances.

Tom Brake: I should declare an interest as a Sutton and East Surrey consumer. Does the Minister believe that customers should benefit from a discount in their Bills for the reduction in service?

Ian Pearson: No, I am afraid that I do not. Our water system is based specifically on ensuring that we have long-term plans, but those are not long-term plans to prevent there ever being a water shortage. Arranging for there never to be a water shortage would require such a huge capital investment that people's water bills would be enormous. We have to expect water shortages because of adverse weather conditions in certain circumstances. I am afraid that, although the situation is difficult for consumers who cannot water their gardens and who are being encouraged to be more water-efficient, it is right that they should look to take those measures and they should not really expect to see a reduction in their Bills as a result.

Greg Hands: Exactly five years ago —[ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will decide when the statement finishes. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) should not get impatient. The one thing that you need in Parliament is patience.

Greg Hands: Exactly five years ago, TV images of the foot and mouth crisis had a negative impact on tourism in this country. If TV images of standpipes and people approaching them with buckets were to be beamed across the world, the likely effect on visitors to this country could be dire. What meetings has the Minister had with representatives of London and south-east tourism, and the conference and hotel industry in recent days?

Ian Pearson: I have not had any specific meetings with the tourism industry in London. I have been rather focused on other matters. In granting a drought order—other orders that have gone through the inspectors' inquiries are under consideration in the south-east—we are trying to take early action to prevent the possibility of having to use standpipes in the future if the drought conditions persist. It is surely right to take early, prompt action now. The message to consumers in the south-east to use water responsibly could make sure that we do not need to take more extreme measures at a later date.

Andrew Selous: South-West Bedfordshire, which currently has water restrictions, is due to have the largest number of houses built in it out of anywhere in the south-east. Anglian Water has told me—contrary to what the Minister has just said to the House—that funding for local water infrastructure will come only in 2010, but the new houses will be being built from 2009 onwards. Anglian Water needs to know that information now. Is that not a failure of joined-up government?

Ian Pearson: I take the hon. Gentleman's point seriously. My understanding of the situation is that the regulator has agreed investment plans with water companies up to 2010 at the moment. There are long-term water resource plans that go to 2030. Funding for 2010 onwards will be taken into account during the next price review. However, I undertake to look into the situation. I get the sense that the House has some concerns about whether planning is being effectively addressed in water resource plans. If I can make any further information available to comfort the House on this matter, I will certainly want to do so.

Tim Loughton: I welcome the Minister's late conversion to the benefits of privatisation, but my constituents and their gardens are going to be thirsty if they have to wait for action until a price review in 2009. He said, quite rightly, that consumers can do much to save water themselves. So, why is it that, on a water company's website, I can buy a large plastic tub with a lid on the top and a hole in the bottom, called a composter, at the heavily subsidised rate of £8.99, but on the same website a plastic tub with a lid on the top and a tap on the bottom, called a water butt, costs £34.99? Surely we should be doing more to promote the subsidised use of water butts in the current drought situation. The water companies claim that there is a national shortage of water butts. Can we get our priorities right and make sure that my constituents who want to save water have the means to do it at an affordable rate?

Ian Pearson: I have not seen the website that the hon. Gentleman referred to, but I am certainly aware that water butts in the south-east have been in short supply for a considerable time. The key message is that people need to save water and to use water sensibly. If that happens, I am sure that we can avoid the need for more extreme measures. Nobody wants to see standpipes in the streets. That is the purpose of the water order for Sutton and East Surrey. We will continue to look at further applications from water companies. As I said, the order of the day is early action now, more work on leakage from the companies, and more attention from consumers to the need to save water.

European Communities (Deregulation)

Henry Bellingham: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision in respect of the effect on persons and businesses of regulations made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.
	I declare my interest in the Register of Members' Interests. One of the constantly recurring complaints from British business concerns EU regulations. Of course, most businesses greatly resent the very existence of many of those regulations, but most of all they condemn the peculiar British habit of gold-plating EU directives. Her Majesty's Government transpose the directives into our law so that they end up being tougher, more complicated and less business-friendly than elsewhere in the EU. The other big complaint is the open-ended lifespan of many of the directives. Time and again, business tells Members that what was relevant 10 years ago is now often out of date, yet the directives remain in place, so why not time limit the directives with sunset clauses?
	That is why my Bill has two key aims: first, to outlaw gold-plating by giving businesses and individuals the right to launch a challenge in the courts, and, secondly, to ensure that directives can be challenged if they do not contain a sunset clause. I pay tribute to the entrepreneur, Sir Paul Judge, who has put a great deal of effort and work into the Bill, and also to my hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster(Mr. Field) and for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), who introduced similar Bills in the last Parliament.
	In a few minutes, I will outline to the House some further details about the Bill, but I just want to say a word or two about the current context that business is facing. Anyone listening to the Chancellor's recent Budget statement would have heard an upbeat assessment of UK plc. We heard a great deal about inflation, growth, interest rates and employment. However, whatever the Chancellor said in his Budget statement, dark storm clouds are gathering over the UK economy. The recent trade figures were atrocious. Indeed, trade in goods showed a quarterly deficit of £18.9 billion, which was the worst since records began in 1697. I am struggling to remember who was on the throne in 1697, although I sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) will know—was it William of Orange? That was a long time ago and the figures are disgraceful.
	Our competitive position is under threat. Indeed, in the World Economic Forum's competitiveness league tables, the UK has fallen from fourth in 1998 to 13th today. According to the CBI, we are experiencing the lowest level of business investment since records began. Spending on research and development is falling and there is a skills crisis, with 5 million people having no qualifications at all.
	The phenomenon of falling productivity growth is one of the key reasons behind our worsening competitive position. Our productivity grew at an annual average rate of 2.5 per cent. between 1992 and 1997, but has now slowed to 1.6 per cent. over the past six years, which is in line with the rate in the eurozone, but way below that of America and many other economies.
	One of the main drivers for the dark set of clouds that is gathering is excessive regulation. Indeed, the British Chambers of Commerce has a burdens barometer. When I last looked at it, the combined total cost of regulation since 1997, excluding the minimum wage, came to £50.27 billion. Much of that regulation comes from the EU. Indeed, Her Majesty's Government's Better Regulation Task Force estimated that the EU was responsible for roughly 40 per cent. of all regulations affecting business. The relentless tide of EU regulations is getting worse, and despite what the Chancellor says and despite the Lisbon agenda, the situation is bleak.
	I entirely accept that there are other drivers of regulation that affects business, including the Government's policy agenda. We have administrative creep in this country and government is growing larger by the week and the compensation culture is exploding. However, the biggest driver of all is gold-plating, although it is the most avoidable of all, too. As I mentioned briefly, gold-plating occurs when implementation in this country goes beyond the minimum necessary to comply with an EU directive. It can involve extending the scope of a directive by adding to its substantive requirements, or substituting wider UK legal terms for those in the directive. It can involve not taking advantage of derogations, or providing for sanctions, enforcement mechanisms and matters that go beyond the minimum needed, such as the burden of proof. Such things happen time and time again.
	Let me give two quick examples. The Government implemented the EU part-time workers directive through the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. The EU directive stated that part-time workers must have the same rights as full-time workers, but left member states to decide how to implement the requirement. The UK regulations include a provision that UK firms must issue part-time workers who query their terms and conditions with a written statement setting out all reasons within 14 days. The British Chambers of Commerce argued that that was a classic example of gold-plating.
	A further such example was discussed the other day. The artists' resale rights directive or, to give its French title, the droit de suite regulations, give living artists—it will eventually cover dead artists as well—a right to a percentage of revenue when their works are sold. The British Government said that they would oppose it, but unfortunately, the regulations got into the hands of an especially weak Department of Trade and Industry Minister in another place. The Minister spectacularly over-regulated, and instead of implementing the directive to the letter and sticking to what it strictly required, he ensured that the threshold for a work of art was not €3,000, but €1,000, thus drawing into the net huge numbers of extra businesses and items and completely contradicting the Prime Minister's and the Government's earlier campaign in Brussels to try to get the directive rejected.
	Such gold-plating happens all the time, so what can be done about it? A Bill could be introduced to challenge gold-plating itself. My Bill would achieve that by introducing a right for businesses, individuals and public bodies to seek a declaration by the courts that UK regulations enacted under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 were ineffective to the extent that their provisions went beyond the basic minimum requirement under Community law. That would apply if the UK regulations contained extra and burdensome clauses beyond the requirements of Community law. Secondly, it would apply if other member states had not implemented certain provisions, and, thirdly, if other member states had implemented such provisions in a less burdensome way. Additionally, and importantly, similar legal challenges could be made under the Bill if the EU directive did not contain a sunset clause or specific cut-off date.
	My Bill would force policy makers and civil servants to monitor closely what was happening in other member states. Above all else, it would help to change the whole culture of Whitehall and make that much more business-friendly. Rather than the UK habitually being the toughest and most pedantic implementer of EU regulations, we would thus actually move at the pace of the most dynamic and least regulated UK economy. That explains why the Bill is needed. It is not some back-of-an-envelope, here-today-gone-tomorrow, kite-flying ten-minute Bill, but a measure that is vital to the health and future of UK businesses.
	The Bill has third-party endorsement. The Federation of Small Businesses says:
	"This constructive Bill carries the support of the Federation of Small Businesses."
	The Bill has the support of the British Chambers of Commerce, which says:
	"The BCC believes that the measures contained in this Bill will go some way towards improving the regulatory culture in the UK".
	It has the support of the Forum of Private Business, which says:
	"This Bill will allow gold-plated regulations to be challenged and overturned ... This is fantastic news for smaller businesses".
	The Bill also has all-party support and I commend it to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Henry Bellingham, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, Adam Afriyie, Mr. Edward Davey, Mr. Philip Dunne, Mr. Mark Field, Mr. Nick Hurd, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Mr. Shailesh Vara, Angela Watkinson and Mr. Tim Yeo.

European Communities (Deregulation)

Mr. Henry Bellingham accordingly presented a Bill to make provision in respect of the effect on persons and businesses of regulations made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed [Bill 183].

Orders of the Day

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

As amended in the Committee and the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Sustainable development

'(1) A public authority must, in exercising its functions, act in the way it considers best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in Northern Ireland, except to the extent that it considers that any such action is not reasonably practicable in all the circumstances of the case.
	(2) For this purpose—
	(a) a public authority must have regard to any strategy or guidance relating to sustainable development issued by the Department of the Environment, and
	(b) a public authority other than a Northern Ireland department must have regard to any guidance relating to sustainable development issued by a Northern Ireland department other than the Department of the Environment.
	(3) In this section "public authority" means—
	(a) a Northern Ireland department,
	(b) a district council in Northern Ireland, and
	(c) any other person designated for the purposes of this section by order made by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.
	(4) The power to make an order under subsection (3)(c) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).
	(5) Such an order may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Northern Ireland Assembly.'. — [Mr. Hanson.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

David Hanson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 1.

David Hanson: I hope that the new clause and amendment will find favour in the House because they will establish a statutory duty for sustainable development on public authorities in Northern Ireland. They will ensure that public authorities act in a manner that best contributes to the objectives of sustainable development. You may be aware, Mr. Speaker, that on 9 May my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched the Northern Ireland sustainable development strategy, which in itself establishes a framework and focus for tackling the challenges that lie ahead on sustainable development and environmental protection, to provide a better future for future generations in Northern Ireland.
	It is self-evident that global warming is a continuing problem, and the Government and the people of Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom need to support measures that tackle the problem and make our communities more sustainable. There are certainly measures that we can take which will help to achieve those objectives and aims. Without a doubt, we need to look not only at our own lives, but at our public bodies and institutions to see how we can deliver a strategy to help us make more responsible choices on sustainable development. We need to take account of long-term sustainability. The Government are committed to that, and we need to ensure that we take a lead on that in government so that we meet sustainable objectives and set a framework to encourage others, particularly public bodies, to do so as well.
	The new clause gives a power to the Secretary of State to put a statutory duty on public authorities. It sends a strong signal from the Government that we are serious about tackling global warming, encouraging sustainable development and making those objectives a reality, not just in government, but in other public bodies in Northern Ireland. The policy will allow for the transfer from the Department of the Environment to the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister the ability to set sustainable targets. I shortly expect to consult further on what those targets and objectives should be.

Lady Hermon: The Minister will be well aware that, in his home nation of Wales, the National Assembly has a statutory duty to promote sustainable development. Given that he has referred to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly having the power to designate other public authorities, and in the light of his good wishes for the re-establishment—one hopes—of the real Northern Ireland Assembly, why is there no provision for the Assembly to have the duty that there is in Wales to promote sustainable development?

David Hanson: The hon. Lady is accurate. The National Assembly for Wales has a statutory duty on that basis. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has shown, from the Government's perspective, that we wish to promote sustainable development. Subsection (3) allows for "public authority" to mean
	"any other person designated for the purposes of this section by order made by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister."
	The Northern Ireland Assembly can consider that. The Government have tried to set down objectives for local authorities and other public bodies. We have left open the opportunity for other persons to be designated. If the Assembly wants to have a statutory authority, it can examine those matters and discuss them with the Northern Ireland team.
	I commend the new clause and hope that it receives the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mark Durkan: I offer a broad welcome to the new clause. There is strong support in the community for the active commitment that the Secretary of State in particular is showing to moving the sustainable development agenda forward. It is clear that the new clause spins out of the sustainable development strategy launched last week. The Government are moving quickly to translate their commitments into legislation. That is welcome. I note that that contrasts with the Government's long-standing commitment to consider issues such as the powers of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. They are still reluctant to address such things in the Bill, yet something new can quickly spin into it. Perhaps the Minister will address that.
	Some of the details could be fine-tuned, in particular when it comes to putting things into practice. Hon. Members might know from what I have said before that I am not sure that putting sustainable development and its co-ordination into the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister is the best way of ensuring that the necessary co-ordination takes place. There is already a clutter of responsibilities in that Department that are not easy to manage in terms of co-ordination and liaison. This could add to the difficulties.
	My experience of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister working with other Departments is that things can be cross-cutting, but they do not achieve the benefits of cross-cutting co-ordination. I hope that there is enough room for us to revisit that so that the Assembly and a restored Executive can make the best, most competent and most appropriate provisions for a rigorous approach to sustainable development by Government and non-governmental bodies.

Nigel Dodds: I agree with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). Generally speaking, the new clause is uncontentious and will be broadly welcomed, but I want to tease out some details.
	Sustainable development is new to the Bill and was not discussed on Second Reading or in Committee. One of the difficulties of a miscellaneous provisions Bill is that we might have to deal with things that come almost out of nowhere and at any stage, whether it is in Committee or on Report. Nevertheless, sustainable development and the aims for public authorities are laudable.
	Subsection (1) states:
	"A public authority must, in exercising its functions, act in the way it considers best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development...except to the extent"—
	this is what concerns me—
	"that it considers that any such action is not reasonably practicable in all the circumstances of the case."
	As we know, a get-out clause is always written in for such matters. What examples does the Minister have in mind? What circumstances could a public authority use as a means of avoiding action that it might otherwise take?

David Hanson: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The new clause is a framework clause to give the Secretary of State the power to set guidance for local authorities. It is the intention of the Secretary of State, via the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and myself, as the Minister responsible, to consult on a range of things to do with the implementation of the new clause in due course. There will be an opportunity for the specific targets and responsibilities of local authorities, and for the Secretary of State's relationship, to be determined.

Nigel Dodds: I am grateful to the Minister. He refers to something that I was going to explore: the purpose of the new clause. He talks of giving the Secretary of State certain powers. Perhaps he can clarify that. Is it not the case that, under the terms of the new clause, public authorities, whether they are Northern Ireland Departments or district councils, will immediately be subject to the duty? It does not require a further order by the Secretary of State. The powers that he is taking relate to introducing an Order in Council to allow the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to designate other bodies. That is significant because, when the new clause passes into law and receives Royal Assent, Northern Ireland Departments and local authorities will be subject to its provisions from that time forward, without the need for any further action. That is a major innovation .
	To my knowledge, there has not been much discussion in the council of which I am a member in Belfast about the duty and obligation that will be imposed. I would be grateful if the Minister would say what discussions have taken place with local authorities in Northern Ireland on that issue. What will the cost implications be for local authorities? What assessment has been made of that? We are all aware that all this is important, but clearly there are costs involved and it is important that we understand that, too.
	Today we may pass legislation that is entirely laudable in its objectives, but people may come to us afterwards and say, "We could have done with a lot more discussion about what it will mean in practice." I invite the Minister to address some of those issues.

Alan Reid: We certainly support new clause 1 and amendment No. 1. Sustainable development is clearly an important aim for public authorities and we support the Government placing a duty on public authorities to achieve sustainable development. I want to raise a similar issue. Are the Government considering placing a duty on public bodies to promote the shared future agenda? It is now over a year since the Government published their framework document, "A Shared Future". Although that document was strong on vision and principles, it was light on policy specifics. At that time, the Government made commitments to publish the first in a series of shared future action plans in the autumn of 2005. That is now well overdue. Although the Government have freely used the concept of the shared future in speeches, there seems to be a lack of specifics. Surely that should be a priority for public bodies in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Minister can explain what the Government's intentions are on the shared future agenda.

David Hanson: I am grateful for the broad welcome for the measure from hon. Members on both sides of the House. As I said, on 9 May, the Secretary of State outlined his vision of a sustainable development strategy for Northern Ireland. That backs up the Government's £59 million package of measures to help to support a range of initiatives on sustainable development in Northern Ireland. The principle today is that we give the Secretary of State a power to place that duty on local councils.
	As I indicated in an intervention, I inherited the post of Deputy First Minister and First Minister a week ago following the internal reshuffle in Northern Ireland. It is our intention to look at how we can consult onthe issues that the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) mentioned—the practicalities and what the duty means in practice. We want to ensure that we encourage local authorities and other public bodies to act in a sustainable way. That will include looking at recycling, energy conservation and a range of issues to help to build a sustainable Northern Ireland. I accept fully that there may in due course be cost implications. In due course, duties may be placed. It is my intention and that of colleagues, following the Secretary of State's announcement, to look at the issue of guidance and what the provision means in practice, and to issue that for consultation with local authorities as part of examining the matter in more detail.

William McCrea: Can the Minister clarify subsection (1) of new clause 1, which states "A public authority must"—there is an imperative—
	"in exercising its functions, act in the way it considers best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development".
	There is a must and then there is a broad brush. They can do little, they can do much. It is as they believe best. Is that what this is about?

David Hanson: That is a similar point to the one that was made by the hon. Member for Belfast, North. I intend in broad terms today to get the support of the House for a sustainable development strategy for Northern Ireland and for the measure to place a duty on local authorities to contribute to that. Having inherited this post some seven days ago, I want to consult on how that duty will operate in practice, what the relationship is and what the targets are. I want to examine that in detail so that we can get collective ownership of those targets, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
	I hope that it will be of help to the hon. Gentleman when I say that the Northern Ireland Local Government Association has been an active stakeholder and participant in helping to draw up the strategy that the Secretary of State launched on 9 May. The councils' living more sustainably working group has also been involved in the consultations to get us where we are. However, more guidance is needed. Today, I hope that the House will support the principle of sustainable development generally.
	The Government take the whole question of the shared future programme and the "A Shared Future" document extremely seriously. I hope that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) knows that the Secretary of State in the past fortnight has relaunched that document. It is our intention, while we hold office in the direct rule Administration, to ensure not only that are we advocates for a shared future in Northern Ireland as a whole but that we look in detail at how to implement "A Shared Future" in government in Northern Ireland.
	With the mini re-shuffle in Northern Ireland, I assumed responsibility for "A Shared Future" some eight days ago. I intend as part of the ministerial team to look at how, in what I hope will be the short time I hold this post in the Assembly, to drive forward that agenda to meet our objectives. We may disagree on this, but I believe that we cannot legislate for "A Shared Future" in that way but that we need to examine how we can put it into practice in due course. I will look at the strategy and take that on board. I am happy to discuss with the hon. Gentleman outside this place his party's views on that matter, as I am with any others, but the whole ministerial team is committed to ensuring that "A Shared Future" operates in practice.
	The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is right that Wales has Executive power vested in the National Assembly. As I have said, the new clause will allow for further public authorities to be designated for the purposes of the duty. I reconfirm that it is open to the Northern Ireland Assembly in due course to make those requests accordingly. I hope that the Assembly has an early opportunity to do that. I hope that hon. Members can support the new clause. I take on board the points that have been made, but hope that hon. Members will support it and await the guidance in due course.

Alasdair McDonnell: I congratulate the Minister on his elevation to the post of First Minister. I hope that he brings the poise, charm and personality that he has shown in the past 12 months to that office, too.
	Like my colleagues, I welcome the commitment to sustainable development but the biggest difficulty for me is the deep concern at the measure coming suddenly at us and perhaps us not having time to think it through. The biggest offenders in opposing or obstructing sustainable development in Northern Ireland are Government Departments, particularly the old Department of the Environment, which is now split up into the department of environment, the department of regional development and the department of social development. Will this legislation do anything to ensure that Government Departments, particularly the department of regional development, will use recycled building materials in Government contracts? Until now, Government have refused to allow recycled materials in Government contracts.

David Hanson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments. I think that that is the nicest thing he has said to me all year and it is only the fifth month of the year, so we are doing quite well. From my perspective and that of the Government, the key objective of the Secretary of State in requesting this power and in promoting sustainable development is to examine the issues in terms of not just public bodies outside central Government but central Government themselves.
	My hon. Friend made a suggestion with regard to recycled building materials. I am sure that such issues can be examined by Government Departments. We intend simply to put at the heart of government the question of sustainable development, including a range of measures on which central Government will work on over the next few weeks and months until the Assembly, I hope, takes on such responsibilities. We will use guidance and examination to encourage other public bodies to undertake such activity. Without commenting on specific proposals, I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) that there is a central Government drive to create sustainability in central Government and other public bodies. We are open to suggestions as to how we achieve that, but it is imperative that we undertake such a drive. For the reasons that I have outlined, I commend the new clause and amendment to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Conditions for devolving policing and justice matters

'(1) Amend section 4 of the 1998 Act (transferred, excepted and reserved matters) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2), for "subsection (3)" substitute "subsections (2A) and (3)".
	(3) After subsection (2) insert—
	"(2A) The Secretary of State shall not lay before Parliament under subsection (2) the draft of an Order amending Schedule 3 so that a devolved policing and justice matter ceases to be a reserved matter unless—
	(a) a motion for a resolution praying that the matter should cease to be a reserved matter is tabled by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly; and
	(b) the resolution is passed by the Assembly with the support of a majority of the members voting on the motion, a majority of the designated Nationalists voting and a majority of the designated Unionists voting."
	(4) In subsection (3), for "the draft of an Order before Parliament under subsection (2)" substitute "before Parliament under subsection (2) the draft of any other Order".
	(5) After subsection (5) insert—
	"(6) In this section "devolved policing and justice matter" means a matter falling within a description specified in—
	(a) any of paragraphs 9 to 12, 14A to 15A and 17 of Schedule 3; or
	(b) any other provision of that Schedule designated for this purpose by an order made by the Secretary of State."
	(6) In this Part "the 1998 Act" means the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c. 47).'. — [Mr. Hanson.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

David Hanson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 2 to 8.
	Amendment No. 24, in schedule 2, page 23, line 32 at end insert
	'provided that they have first secured the consent of the nominating officer of the political party to which each member belongs.'.
	Amendment No. 14, in page 23, line 34 leave out from 'passed' to end of line 38 and insert 'with cross-community support'.
	Amendment No. 26, in page 23, line 39 at end insert—
	'(5) Standing orders may make further provision for the nomination and election referred to in subsections (3) and (4).'.
	Amendment No. 27, in page 24, line 19 at end insert—
	'or
	'(d) he is dismissed by the nominating officer whose consent was required for his nomination under subsection (3) (or that officer's successor) and the Presiding Officer is notified of his dismissal.'.
	Amendment No. 30, in page 24, line 25 at end insert—
	'(10A) Where—
	(a) relevant Ministerial offices have been filled by applying sub-paragraph 10(b); and
	(b) a relevant Ministerial office is filled by a member of a different political party
	all Northern Ireland Ministers shall cease to hold office and their Ministerial offices shall be filled by applying subsections (2) to (6) of section 18 within a period specified by standing orders.
	(12) But where—
	(a) a relevant minister was dismissed by the nominating officer who nominated him (or his successor); and
	(b) the nominating officer of that party refuses to consent to the nomination by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of every member of his party within a period specified in standing orders,
	sub-paragraph (10A) shall not apply.'.
	Government amendment No. 9
	Amendment No. 15, in page 26, line 29 leave out from 'passed' to end of line 33 and insert 'with cross-community support'.
	Government amendments Nos. 10 to 12.

David Hanson: The Government new clause and amendments were tabled after our helpful discussions in Committee and on Second Reading and they deal with issues relating to the devolution of policing and justice functions. I shall speak first to new clause 3, then consider Government amendments Nos. 5, 6, 8,9 and 11, which make related and consequential changes.
	It has always been the Government's position that policing and justice can be devolved on a sustainable basis only with broad cross-community support. We have put in place a triple lock, as the Assembly must wish to have devolution, the Secretary of State must wish to agree it on behalf of the Government, and the House of Commons must approve it. Consistent with that position, it is our view that the support of the majority of sections of the community in Northern Ireland is essential if the devolution of policing and justice is to succeed. The amendments give legal effect to that position. New subsection (2A) inserted into section 4 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 by new clause 3(3) accordingly provides that the Secretary of State shall not introduce an order to devolve policing and justice unless a number of caveats are in place.
	First, the Assembly motion asking the Secretary of State to do that must be tabled by the First and Deputy First Ministers acting jointly. Secondly, that motion should receive support in the Assembly from a majority of designated Unionists and a majority of designated nationalists. Having listened to the discussion, it is self-evident that unless the Assembly has that support it is not worth considering forcing devolution on it. The fact that under the amendments the First and Deputy First Ministers would have to introduce a proposal shows that a majority of community support is necessary. We want a majority of nationalists and designated Unionists to support it, too. New clause 5 (5) introduces a drafting change to that effect.
	On Government amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7 and 10, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have made it clear during the passage of the Bill that it is the Government's intention to ensure that the Assembly has the greatest possible flexibility to determine the departmental models to oversee policing and justice.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister clarify what precisely is meant by the triple lock? He referred to a cross-community vote in the Assembly, agreement by the Secretary of State and approval by Parliament. However, new clause 3 imposes another triple lock: the First and Deputy First Ministers act jointly, then a resolution is passed by the Assembly with cross-community support, then an order is laid before the House. What is the Secretary of State's role in that arrangement? Is it part of the triple lock or is it redefined, so that he is substituted by the First and Deputy First Ministers?

David Hanson: If the hon. Lady wishes to be pedantic, perhaps it is a quadruple lock. The Secretary of State and I seek a situation in which devolution of policing and criminal justice takes place following a cross-community vote among nationalists and Unionists in the Assembly in support of the proposal, which is then considered by my right hon. Friend or his successor, who agrees to recommend it as Government policy to the House of Commons, which must support it before it can take place. That is a triple lock. The hon. Lady wishes to make it a quadruple lock because there is a two-part assessment when the Assembly reaches its decision. However, I put it in the following terms: the Assembly; the Secretary of State; the House of Commons.

Patrick Cormack: What happens if a designated Unionist does a back flip? Is he redesignated as another sort of Unionist, or does he remain a designated Unionist with his original label? I refer to current events.

David Hanson: Current events are obviously extremely important and my esteemed colleague Eileen Bell, the Speaker of the Assembly, has sought legal advice on the matter. Lest I confuse any lawyers who are looking at the issue, it is best to allow that legal advice to be given so that Eileen Bell can make her judgment in due course.

Lembit �pik: The Minister will know that I have long been concerned about triple and quadruple locks because they can be manipulated, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) suggested. The Minister assured us in previous proceedings on the Bill that he would consult the parties about their preferred mechanism of election. Has he done so?

David Hanson: Again, the purpose of the measure is quite simple. However we describe it, it is a simple process. The Assembly must submit a request to the Secretary of State asking for the devolution of policing. The Secretary of State must agreepresumably, that will involve discussion with Cabinet colleagues because he must make an assessment or political judgment as to whether he wishes to recommend itand he must make a recommendation at the Dispatch Box to the House of Commons, which must support it before it can take place. That is a simple, straightforward process, as the Assembly, the Secretary of State and the House of Commons must secure approval for the proposal. I am certainly happy with our position, which I discussed with individuals when considering whether to table the amendments. I have tried to facilitate a procedure so that, should the Assembly wish to do so, it can advance the proposal in due course.

Mark Durkan: Does the Minister accept that talk of triple and quadruple locks involves double-speak? In the past, whenever the Democratic Unionist party referred to the triple lock that it says that it achieved in the comprehensive agreement, it meant that it could control whether or not there was movement on the devolution of justice and policing. It would be able to control the form of the Department and the appointment of Ministers. That triple lock is different from the triple lock outlined by the Minister.

David Hanson: I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that we are at a stage where the Assembly does not formally constitute an Executive. There will not necessarily be movement towards that framework in the foreseeable future, so we will put in place such a framework. Neither he nor I know whether any movement towards devolved criminal justice and policing will take place before or after a further Assembly election. I cannot even envisage a situation in which I know who will be the First and Deputy First Ministers or which will be the majority parties in the Assembly when a decision is made to effect the devolution of criminal justice and policing.

Mark Durkan: Does that mean that further legislation on the matter might be needed?

David Hanson: No. I am trying to put in place a framework so that when the Assembly wishes to do so, it can request devolution of criminal justice and policing. With due respect to my hon. Friend, he is over-complicating matters that are simple. I hope that, as ever, he will trust my judgment and relax.

Lady Hermon: May I convey to the Minister a point of reference? His colleague, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, gave evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee almost exactly a week ago, in which he referred to the triple lock on the devolution of policing and justice. He stated:
	It requires across community votes in the Assembly
	that is precisely what he said. He went on to say that
	it then requires a Secretary of State to agree it, and Parliament to approve the necessary legislation.
	At no stage was there any reference to the First and Deputy First Ministers acting jointly.  [Interruption.] With great respect to those who are making comments from a sedentary position, they will get their opportunity later. Will the Minister elaborate? Did the Secretary of State know last week, when he gave evidence live to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, that there was a fourth element, or has the definition been changed within the week? As usual, the Northern Ireland Office moves with great speed on these matters.

David Hanson: The hon. Lady will know that there was discussion of these matters in Committee and the Government have reflected on that. The new clause to allow the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to propose that change is important, but it does not change the balance of the argument. It would be strange if the Assembly voted to devolve criminal justice and policing, but the First Minister and Deputy First Minister were against it, as they will presumably be the leaders of the largest parties in the Assembly.
	We have tabled the amendments and new clauses to support the wish of the Assembly for such devolution. I say again to all hon. Members that the Assembly must decide, the Secretary of State must agree and the House of Commons must support that process. That may happen at some point when the Assembly forms its Executive.
	I shall make progress. During the passage of the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have made clear the Government's intention to make possible a range of departmental models for devolution of policing and criminal justice. Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7 and 10 support that objective. We discussed the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in detail in Committee and we considered a range of models in the Act for the devolution of policing and criminal justice. Section 16 of the 1998 Act permits the Assembly to create various forms of departmental responsibility. We have sought to broaden that choice through consultation on the Bill.
	As hon. Members may recall, during the debate in the Committee of the whole House on 20 April, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) suggested that, notwithstanding the provisions of the Bill, there was at least one further model that had not been considereda department of policing and justice that might be in the charge of a single Minister elected on a cross-community resolution of the Assembly, rather than appointed under the d'Hondt process.
	I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that his words of wisdom have been listened to by the Government and we have tabled an amendment which, I hope, meets the objectives that he set in the debate on 20 April. He will know, therefore, that on occasion the Government act in a comradely fashion with his party. I cannot help him on every occasion, but when I can I am pleased to do so, and I will labour the point to keep him on his toes. Amendment No. 3 provides for the new model. Amendments Nos. 2, 10 and 7 reflect that addition.
	Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 were tabled by the Liberal Democrats. In Committee, I undertook to reflect on the points made by the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) at the time. The Government's view is that a department of policing and justice with joint or rotating Ministers would bear a strong similarity to the office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and correspondingly the requirement for cross-community support for those Ministers, set out in the Bill, reflects that for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
	On reflection, I have concerns that that is a move away from the requirement for parallel consent from both sides of the community. Having considered the matter in detail, I have concluded that that support for any nomination for ministerial appointment to a department with devolved policing and justice functions that makes use of one of the models provided for in the Bill should continue to be required to secure parallel consent. This may disappoint the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), but it is important that we keep to the original principles.
	As drafted, the Bill requires Ministers under the alternative models for the department of policing and justice to be nominated by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and for their nomination to be approved by the Assembly with the support of a majority of Members. The amendments give effect to that, on the basis of the 50:50:50 model.
	The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle would remove the responsibility for nomination and subsequent dismissal from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and put it in the hands of party nominating officers. I do not believe that to be workable or consistent. I am sorry that I cannot help my hon. Friend on this occasion and I ask him to withdraw the amendments, given that I have been able to help him in other respects during consideration of the Bill.
	I hope that Members in all parts of the House will recognise that the amendments are the result of amendments tabled but not debated, discussion in Committee and representations made to me from all parts of the House relating to the devolution of criminal justice and policing. I commend the Government new clauses and amendments to the House and ask Liberal Democrat and Social Democratic and Labour party Members to recognise that I have moved some way and to withdraw their amendments accordingly.

Lembit �pik: I listened with interest to the Minister and accept that he has provided us with a clear exposition of where he stands. He rightly highlighted the issues that we address in our amendments Nos. 14 and 15. The amendments were tabled in Committee, and in his reply the Minister said that he would reflect on them and discuss with political parties whether they wanted some flexibility in the voting arrangements. We appreciate that there has not been much time between Committee and Report for such discussions, but we re-tabled the amendments to give the Minister an opportunity to update the House. He has given his view, but I infer that he has not explicitly spoken with the parties.
	I remind the Minister of his words. He said in Committee:
	I am reasonably flexible in the matter. Although 50:50:50 was our original choice, the amendment would mean that there were two methods.
	He is right about that. He continued:
	I have not discussed the election of a criminal justice Minister with any of the parties in Northern Ireland to take their views about what would be acceptable to the Assembly, but I am reasonably content to look into that possibility.[ Official Report, 20 April 2006; Vol. 445, c. 297.]
	It is a small gripe, but I believe that, the Government having imposed the timetable on us, the Minister was obliged to undertake some consultation, and I am disappointed that he has not done so.

David Hanson: We have been in discussion with parties on various issues. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that there is a range of issues before political parties in Northern Ireland. The Bill is not necessarily at the forefront of everyone's mind, given the issues relating to the restoration of the Assembly. I am happy to discuss the matter with the parties, as I have said before. We have had some general consultations, I have reflected seriously on the matter and I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept my good faith.

Lembit �pik: We differ on the judgment about the electoral system, but I shall not repeat the argument because the Minister has made it clear that he will not accept our suggestions, which is fair enough. We will not push our amendment to a vote on that issue, which simply involves a difference of view. My point concerns the process. The Minister knows about the frustrations when the Government impose and do not consult. Without being too heavy on him, I wish that the Government would be more assiduous in going through the consultation process after they have inferred in this Chamber that they will do so. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board, notwithstanding the difference of view on specific amendments.
	New clause 3 seems to insist that the devolution of policing and justice functions can occur only when the motion before the Assembly is laid jointly by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. That makes sense for the reasons that the Minister has outlined, as does the requirement that the motion should be approved by a majority within the Assembly as a whole.
	The rest of the amendments seem to be largely technical. In his response to our brief debate, I hope that the Minister will clarify my concern about Government amendments Nos. 4 and 6. Does the consequence of those amendments limit the ability of the political parties to decide the shape of any department of policing and justice, and do those amendments mean that there can be only one department that incorporates policing and justice functions?

David Hanson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Assembly has full flexibility to determine which model it uses. All I am trying to do is provide the broadest possible menu, to which I have added one additional option with the help of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle.

Lembit �pik: The Minister's intervention is helpful, because the record will show that those amendments do not prohibit the setting up of separate departments for policing and for justice, if that is what the Assembly wants to do. I have no reason to think that the Assembly wants to do that, but it would be in keeping with the spirit of giving the Assembly the right to organise its devolved processes not to preclude that option. I thank the Minister for that clarification.
	The SDLP amendments seem to make sense. One might think that it goes without saying that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister would not nominate a person for ministerial office if that person's political party did not want them to take up that position. Given the history of politics in Northern Ireland, however, we know that anything is possible. I look forward to further clarification from the SDLP spokesman, whoever he may be, but I am sympathetic to the common-sense position adopted in the amendments because, as we all know from painful experience, when it comes to some matters relating to Northern Ireland legislation, sense is not common.

Mark Durkan: I will raise our concerns about new clause 3 and some of the Government amendments and our support for some of the other Government amendments, but first I shall speak in favour of our amendments Nos. 24, 26, 27 and 30. Furthermore, we will lend our support to Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 14 and 15, at least in terms of this debate.
	Our amendments aim to address a fundamental unfairness in the legislation. The starting point for understanding our amendments is the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which implemented the d'Hondt system in the Good Friday agreement. Under the 1998 Act, the nominating officer of each party, who is usually the party leader, appoints Ministers, and they have the power to fire those Ministers, unless, of course, the Assembly chooses to exclude Ministers from office for particular reasons.
	By contrast, under the system in the Bill, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister would choose the justice Ministers. If they wanted to do so, they could nominate a member of another party, perhaps even against the wishes of that party's leader, which happens from time to time in politics. In southern Irish politics, there is the famous example of Charlie Haughey appointing a member of the Fianna Fail parliamentary party to be European Commissioner to force a by-election to convenience himself.

Peter Robinson: There was also the Speaker in the previous Assembly.

Mark Durkan: As the hon. Gentleman has said, that also happened in the previous Assembly with the post of Speaker, when issues went on inside a particular party. On that occasion, Caesar did in Brutus, but such events have occurred for calculated reasons.
	We must remember that the Bill provides that a ministerial appointment will count against the party whose member is appointed a Minister for the purposes of the d'Hondt system. The parties would therefore be denied their own legitimate and proper choice under the d'Hondt system by virtue of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister perhaps selecting somebody from another party without the agreement of that party or that party's leader through the use of the parallel consent mechanism. That is fundamentally unfair, and it goes against the grain of the Good Friday agreement in terms of inclusion and the choices that rest with parties. It is a return to the principle of parties not being able to vet or veto each other's appointments.
	Amendment No. 24 seeks to address that matter by stating that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister may nominate a person for the justice portfolio only with the consent of that party's nominating officer. So, contrary to what the Minister has said, we are not in the business of denying the First Minister and Deputy First Minister any role in the matter. We say that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister should only be able to nominate for the police and justice portfolio with the consent of a party's nominating officer, given that that party's d'Hondt quota will be affected and that its ranking of choice under d'Hondt will be materially affected.
	Amendments Nos. 24, 26, 27 and 30 apply only to joint Ministers, as they are currently drafted. However, I contend that the same approach should logically apply to rotating Ministers, for which the Bill provides, or, indeed, to a Minister elected with parallel consent, which is covered by the Government amendment that the Minister discussed earlier.
	Amendment No. 26 makes a consequential amendment to allow the standing orders to permit the nomination and election of joint justice Ministers. That would be helpful to ensure clarity on procedure in the same way as the standing orders for the Assembly under the Northern Ireland Act 2006 provide helpful procedural clarity on, for instance, how to manage if two sets of people are proposed as joint Ministers.
	Amendments Nos. 27 and 30 address the dismissal of a Minister. As has been said, Ministers appointed under the d'Hondt system are appointed by, and may be dismissed by, the leader of their partythe Assembly may also choose to exclude them. Under the Bill, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have the sole power of dismissal, although holding ministerial office counts towards a party's d'Hondt entitlements. Even more significantly, the Bill is wide open for abuse, because it specifies that holding office as a junior Minister counts towards a party's entitlements under d'Hondt.
	The First Minister and Deputy First Minister could appoint a member of another party, using the votes of their own parties under parallel consent to secure that appointment, only to dismiss them and vote in a member of one of their own parties instead after the d'Hondt system had been run for other ministerial offices.

Nigel Dodds: I am trying very hard to follow the hon. Gentleman's reasoning, which involves a lot of hypotheticals. As the hon. Gentleman deals with the minutiae of the mechanics of the appointment of a possible Minister, will he accept that the situation is surreal, because the prospect of the community having any confidence in the devolution of policing and justice powers in Northern Ireland is remote? We should consider the matter in that context.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman makes his point. That may well be so, but the fact is that we are faced with this Bill, which is asking us to arrange the furniture in what may be castles in the air. That is the nature of the legislative exercise that we are undertaking. The Minister has indicated on several occasions that some of this goes back to previous discussionsperhaps more of that anon.
	Under the Bill as it stands, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, who would clearly be fromSinn Fein and the DUP on current numbers, can appoint somebody from another party. They can vote that person into office using their own votes under parallel consent against the wishes of that party, thereby altering its d'Hondt entitlements. They can then subsequently fire that Minister or those Ministers and replace them with somebody from their own party, and the party that originally lost out under d'Hondt still loses out. It gets fewer Ministers than it is entitled to under d'Hondt by virtue of the First and Deputy First Ministers using the power that the Bill gives them. That is fundamentally unfair. The problem with the Bill is that control is given solely to the parties of the First and Deputy First Ministers, not to the Assembly or to anybody else.

Peter Robinson: Let me try to clarify something. I understood the hon. Gentleman to have said that if the First and Deputy First Ministers were to appoint a member of another party without the approval of that party, that would use up one of their d'Hondt entitlements. Where does he see that?

Mark Durkan: If the hon. Gentleman reads the schedules, he will see the various permutations that are offered for joint Ministers, rotating Ministers or any other types of Minister, all of whom have to be appointed before d'Hondt can be run. Schedule 2 provides that the d'Hondt arithmetic will already count the holding of a justice ministerial office as the holding of a ministerial office. Under the M plus one formula, when d'Hondt is run, M will include a justice ministerial office already held whether under rotating junior and senior or joint ministerial offices. That means that if Sinn Fein and the DUP appoint their own party members as joint justice Ministers, they will lose their first entitlement under d'Hondt. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not know that. I remember that when he asked the Minister on Second Reading whether it would count towards d'Hondt, the Minister was unable to provide the answer, but the schedules make it clear that it does.
	It could well be that Sinn Fein and the DUP do not want to use up their first entitlements under d'Hondt by appointing members of their own parties to be joint or rotating justice Ministers. They may pull the stroke of trying to appoint people from other parties tothose Ministries in order to preserve their own d'Hondt entitlements and reduce the d'Hondt ranking preferences of other parties, and then, at a subsequent date, use the powers in the Bill to dismiss those Ministers from other parties and replace them with members of their own parties, thereby securing more than their own d'Hondt entitlements and denying other parties their entitlements. That abuse is wide open and available under the Bill as it stands.

Gregory Campbell: Like other hon. Members, I have endeavoured to follow the hon. Gentleman's logic. Is it not all predicated upon a Member who has been nominated by the nominating officer of another party voluntarily indicating that he or she wishes to be nominated? That was not the position that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) took whenever he was nominated by his party leader but declined. If someone declined, the situation would not materialise.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. Under the Bill as it stands, even with the new Government amendments, no consent whatsoever is required from the nominating officer of the party.

Gregory Campbell: I said consent from the Member nominated.

Mark Durkan: Indeedthe consent of the Member nominated. That applies on a standard basis under d'Hondt. The First and Deputy First Ministers from Sinn Fein and the DUP might well hope that they can inveigle Members from other parties to take such posts against the wishes and advice of their own parties. They can vote them into post, even against the votes of their own party, and still deny that party its entitlements under d'Hondt.

William McCrea: Is not the hon. Gentleman casting aspersions on his own Members? Is he afraid of them turning Turk and taking a post that he does not want them to have?

Mark Durkan: I am certainly not afraid of that. I have doubts and worries about other parties, given the rate at which the DUP has been able to inveigle defections and all sorts of disloyal activities in other parties. That is where I have my doubts. I would also note the Alliance party's occasional proclivities for running after a post that might happen to become available.
	We need to ensure that nothing in the Bill creates new difficulties and unfairnesses. The Bill as it stands, even with the Government amendments, does create an unfairness. As things stand, the First and Deputy First Ministers can bring about a situation whereby their parties hold the first ministerial and deputy first ministerial offices and the justice ministerial office, as well as other ordinary ministerial offices, as though they did not hold the justice ministerial office. If the Government are serious in their intent to ensure that the justice ministerial post counts properly towards d'Hondt and does not materially affect or prejudice any party's d'Hondt entitlement, they should be prepared to accept amendments Nos. 27 and 30, which seek to rectify that possibility.
	Amendment No. 27 would strike a compromise that is contrary to the Minister's suggestion that we are trying to strip the First and Deputy First Ministers of any role in the appointment of justice Ministers. It would provide that the nominating officer of a party can dismiss a justice Minister from his party, just as the party leader can for ministerial offices allocated under d'Hondt. By way of compromise, we would also allow the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to dismiss a justice Minister, even one of another party. However, amendment No. 30 would provide an important safeguard. If they dismiss a justice Minister and replace him with a Minister from a different political party from that of the outgoing justice Minister, d'Hondt has to be re-run for ordinary ministerial offices as well. That would build in a protection against abuse by removing the temptation for itlikewise, for example, if the Assembly or the First Minister and Deputy First Minister refused to support the replacement that a party leader would want where a vacancy arose because of the resignation or death of a justice Minister from that party.
	I accept that it is important to guard against a party leader trying to abuse the system by then sacking his own justice Minister and refusing to allow the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to nominate anybody at all from their party so as to trigger a rerun of d'Hondt for all ministerial offices. I am seeking to prevent the temptation for abuse and tactical manoeuvres by the First and Deputy First Ministers and by party leaders.

David Hanson: I would say to my hon. FriendI mean this in the nicest possible waythat we are in danger of legislating for every single possibility. I am trying to put in place mechanisms for the devolution of police and criminal justice that have the broad support of the Assembly and provide an opportunity to appoint Ministers. He may be looking at this in too much detail.

Mark Durkan: In that case, I would ask the Minister why we are dealing with any of this legislation at all. We are dealing with issues of permutations. When other parties are insisting that they need safeguards and triple locks to protect them from all sorts of perils, is it not right that we who are here to legislate on these matters should ensure that we do that properly, so as to prevent unintended problems and contrary effects to those that the Government claim to intend?
	We have tabled amendments that would avoid re-running d'Hondt on a tactical basis by parties. That would mean that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister could nominate a person from a different political party, without the inconvenience of re-running d'Hondt for ordinary ministerial offices. I ask the Government to reflect on our amendments, even if they do not accept them now. Perhaps they will consider introducing their own amendments elsewhere that would have a similar effect. They would protect the integrity of what the Government say that the Bill is trying to achieve, namely to provide arrangements for a menu of options from which to appoint justice Ministers without doing any damage to the basic architecture of the inclusion formula in the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
	I also want to express our support for the Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 14 and 15. They would make it clear that justice Ministers could be elected by cross-community consent, in contrast to the present requirement for parallel consent alone. The Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 provide for only two occasions on which parallel consent alone is required: the election of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and in the context of the special equality procedure. We see no reason why that especially high threshold should be required solely in those circumstances.
	We are obviously not content with the Government's new clause 3 and consequential amendments Nos. 5, 6, 8 and 9. Section 4 of the Northern Ireland Act already states that devolution of any additional functions cannot occur without prior Assembly cross-community support. However, new clause 3 proposes that additional requirements be introduced only for policing and justice. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister must pray that the matter be devolved, and a vote by parallel consentand only by parallel consentmust also take place. For no good reason, that is being required here. But perhaps there is a bad reason, and perhaps this goes back to previous deals and understandings.
	After the comprehensive agreement in 2004, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) boasted:
	The Comprehensive Agreement is merely the core of the proposals which we have accepted but is also augmented by over a hundred clarificatory answers, notes and letters.
	The Government have refused to publish those documents, despite their assurance to the House on18 April that
	the talks will be genuinely all-party. Whatever happened in the past, and whatever the arguments about that are, given the distrust that has set in over the past couple of years, we cannot proceed without all-party, inclusive negotiations.[ Official Report, 18 April 2006; Vol. 445, c. 27.]
	How inclusive are more than 100 side deals and secret understandings with the DUP and, presumably,Sinn Fein that the rest of us are not allowed to see? Are these proposals the by-product of them? There seem to be clear indications that that is the case. Martin McGuinness is on public record as saying that the whole issue of how the devolution of justice and policing was to be dealt with was all done and dusted in the negotiations in the run-up to the comprehensive agreement. Are we now seeing the result of all that doing and dusting here in the legislation? Is that why the Minister cannot accept even a straightforward amendment such as the one tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik)?

Lembit �pik: In the hon. Gentleman's opinion, would it be helpful if the Minister could give a categorical assurance, for the record, that no side deals were involved in the formulation of this element of the Bill and the Government's amendments to it?

Mark Durkan: It would be helpful and interesting if the Minister could do that. Whether it would be convincing is another matter.

David Hanson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take this in the spirit in which it is intended: I have made no side deals on this matter.

Mark Durkan: I know exactly the spirit in which that was intended, and I take the Minister's assurance in exactly those terms.
	Why will not the Government lay in the Library all the other commitments that they have given in this regard, so that the rest of us can at least see what they are and, if necessary, debate them in the Chamber? A member of the SDLP sought under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to gain sight of the various side deals, many of which presumably affect strand 1 institutions and matters such as the devolution of justice and policing. However, we were deniedsight of any of those documents on the ground that their disclosure might colour or jeopardise the Government's relationship with the Irish Republic. Yet they deal solely with strand 1 matters, which the DUP says that it is very good at safeguarding, saying that there is no Irish Government interest or input in them. We cannot have sight of any of the deals that were, according to Sinn Fein, done and dusted, and that obviously matter so much, according to the hon. Member for Belfast, East, on the ground that they affect the relationship with the Irish Government.
	We as legislators have the right to know where all this is coming from, as well as wanting to see where it is all going to. The SDLP wants a process of equals, because that is the only way to build trust. It is the only way to make progress. That is why we ask the Government to live up to the commitment that they made to inclusive negotiations in Parliament this month, and to let all see all.
	The Minister will be glad to hear that, by contrast, the SDLP is happy to support Government amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 7. These allow for the possibility of a single Minister to be elected by cross-community support and by parallel consent. That said, that might not be our preferred option for the appointment of a justice Minister. However, if the point of the Bill is to provide for a menu of options from which the parties may choose, that option should be included.
	The reason for all this difficulty, and the reason why nearly all of us have been caught trying to put the cart before the horse, is that the Government have launched us into legislating for these options at a time when the parties have not been truly negotiating and debating them. That is why the Minister is having difficulty in presenting the Bill, and why the rest of us are having difficulty in presenting our amendments.
	We say again, howeveras we have in our support for the Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 14 and 15that the vote should involve either version of cross-community support, and not parallel consent alone. We also have difficulties with Government amendment No. 4, which limits to one the number of Departments that have joint, rotating or single cross-community elected Ministers. We do not want more joint Ministers in more Departments, but the Government have gone too far in removing the possibility that, if the Assembly decides on two separate Departments for justice and policing, there could be a single Minister in each Department, elected by cross-community support. Again, I must stress that we are not advocating two separate Departments, but that might be a choice that the Assembly wishes to make. If two Departments were created under d'Hondt, we do not see why the same should not be done if the Assembly decided to have single Ministers in separate Departments voted in by cross-community support.
	The Minister has stressed that he wants the legislation to go forward. We have some difficulties with it, but we are not going to create more difficulty for him or for anyone else. We ask that he considers carefully the points that we have made. I have answered his unfair misrepresentation of our amendments as having the effect of removing completely powers from the First and Deputy First Minister in respect of justice Ministers. We are trying to get a balance of responsibility and rights between parties, and between the First and Deputy First Minister. I therefore commend our amendments, and the spirit of them, to the Minister for further consideration.

Peter Robinson: I bet that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) spends his leisure moments watching The X Files or perhaps Trainspotting. He has taken us beyond what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) described in terms of a situation that is difficult to comprehend, with an enabling Bill and the particulars of unforeseen circumstances. Instead, the hon. Member for Foyle was able to offer us a series of possibilities. I intervened on him to point out that the d'Hondt mechanism would not be affected in all circumstances, but given that he was able to go on at such length on matters that will not necessarily occur, I was afraid to intervene further to tell him what those circumstances might be, as he could have gone on for at least another half-hour.
	The reality is that there are circumstances in which policing and justice can be devolved without d'Hondt being affected. If the trainspotter who prepared the script for the hon. Gentleman has not noticed that, however, I will not draw it to his attention until much later, even if he asks me. I will put it alongside the more than 100 understandings that we had. Perhaps he can get one of his colleagues to make a written request for it under freedom of information.

Mark Durkan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are circumstances under which d'Hondt is clearly affected? Has he read the schedules?

Peter Robinson: I do not need to read the schedules. It is clear from the Bill that there are circumstances in which d'Hondt would be affected. If the hon. Gentleman really believes, however, that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will put the most important and powerful role in the land in the possession of a member of another political party, I am afraid that he has not been involved in the same kind of politics as me. No First Minister and Deputy First Minister are likely to hand over the role of policing and justice Minister to someone in an opposition party. That is just not real politics.
	I welcome some of the amendments put tabled by the Government, especially new clause 3 and amendment No. 3, which are useful.

Eddie McGrady: On a point of clarification, the hon. Gentleman said that we were in fantasy land if we believed that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister would give a serious portfolio to the opposition. First, can he define whom the opposition are? Secondly, in parallel, would either a member of the First Minister's party or the Deputy First Minister's partythat is, a member of the DUP or Sinn Feinbe acceptable to him as a nominee for the justice Minister's position?

Peter Robinson: I assume that the opposition parties would be those other than the parties taking the decision. The coalition referred to is mandatory, not voluntary. In the previous Executive, every party was in opposition to every other party. In the Assembly, Ministers voted against legislation brought forward by other Ministers. We had a bizarre set of circumstances.

William McCrea: Before my hon. Friend moves on, may I suggest to him that SDLP Members should be assured that the possibility of a Sinn Fein member being accepted in such a post is far-fetched?

Peter Robinson: I certainly concur with my hon. Friend. Indeed, the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) will have heard me say, when the Bill was previously considered in the House, that I could not envisage that happening in my lifetime. I am always happy to be surprised about such matters, but the key issue is that the community must be satisfied. I do not believe that the community would be satisfied if people who are associated with those who are involved in terrorism, and who have a history of such involvement, were responsible for policing and justice.
	The bizarre nature of the debate has become even more difficult because of the decision by the party of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) to enter into a formal relationship with a party that speaks for an illegal organisation. I am sure that she supports her leader in his decisions, but I know that the community that I represent cannot understand the Ulster Unionist party's decision to have a formal relationship with the party that speaks for the Ulster Volunteer Force.

Sammy Wilson: Does my hon. Friend accept that, to be fair to the hon. Lady, she is on record, two days before

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now going rather wide of the debate on the amendment.

Peter Robinson: It is actually a critical issue, because the way that policing and justice powers will be devolved to Northern Ireland will put such powers in the hands of the Assembly, where there is now a mountain to climb. The criterion that we have consistently adopted is that we could not be in government with those who are linked to parties involved in paramilitary and criminal activity. Out of the blue, the hon. Lady's party has decided to put itself in that position, having condemned Sinn Fein [Interruption.] I will give way to her if she wants to speak on the issue.

Lady Hermon: That is enormously kind and generous of the hon. Gentleman. He and his colleagues will know that I do not, unlike them, hold a dual mandate. I am not a Member of the Assembly, but only of this House. I was not a party to the decision taken by my colleagues in the Assembly. That decision caused me deep distress. However, having said that, I believe, having had a long conversation last night with my party leader, Sir Reg Empey, that this might allow him an opportunity to exercise leverage on loyalist paramilitaries. It was perfectly obvious that the Northern Ireland Office has no strategy to bring about loyalist decommissioning. If Sir Reg is able to establish now a policy to bring about loyalist decommissioning and prevent any more murders, such as that of Lisa Dorrian in my constituency, that would be worth while. Apart from that, I am deeply distressed by the decision of my party colleagues.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Can we now speak more in generalities than specifics? I accept what the hon. Lady has said, but perhaps we can now continue with the debate.

Peter Robinson: I thank the hon. Lady for making her personal position clear, and I know that when she has the opportunity to speak to her party leader she will remind him that that was not the reason that he has given publicly for his decision. It was a self-serving reasonor at least he thought that it wasas he thought that his party would get an additional ministerial post. However, he will find that that might not work out as he expected.
	To return to new clause 3, policing and justice issues are of such importance that if they are to be devolved to a Northern Ireland Assembly, it is imperative that there is not just general support in the Assembly but, as under the previous legislation, cross-community support.
	According to the definition of cross-community support in the earlier legislation, 40 per cent. of votes from one section of the community would have been sufficient. Policing and justice powers could have been devolved even if the majority of the Unionist community, for instance, did not support it. The Government new clause and amendments remedy that in two ways.
	The first relates to the parallel methods of securing cross-community support in the Assembly. That support can be secured through an overall majority of Assembly Members, no fewer than 50 per cent. being from the Unionist community and no fewer than 50 per cent. being from the nationalist community. Alternatively, it can be secured through an overall majority, at least 40 per cent. being from either the Unionist or the nationalist community. In new clause 3, the Government specify the former method. There must be an overall majority, and a majority of both nationalists and Unionists. That should ensure real cross-community support: substantial support for the devolution of policing and justice powers in both communities, rather than a majority in one community and a minority in the other. The Government have made a sensible decision, establishing at least one lock for the Northern Ireland community.
	The second lock relates to the First and Deputy First Ministers. In practical terms, it would be absurd to provide for circumstances in which the Assembly might decide to devolve policing and justice powers without their consent. The Government have provided for practical circumstances, and for the further lock that my colleagues and I requested. In the comprehensive agreement proposals published by the Government, it was accepted not just by Her Majesty's Government but by the Government of the Irish Republic, and I assume that Sinn Fein approved of it as wellalthough I cannot say for certain, because we were not speaking to Sinn Fein.
	When I mentioned the desirability of this further lock to the Minister on Second Reading and also, I believe, in Committee, he responded that no mischief had been intended by its omission. We attributed its absence to a drafting blip. I am glad that that has now been remedied, and that both those locks are in the Bill.
	It is true that there are two further locks, but they are not locks on which the Northern Ireland community would rely on very strongly. The fact that the Secretary of State must give his approval will not engender a great deal of trust and enthusiasm in the Unionist community nor will the need for the approval of the House, which has passed much legislation that has not been supported by the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland. Those two locks may be important to the Government and the House, but they are not as important to the people of Northern Ireland as the first two locks. The first two locks are to the advantage of Unionist and nationalist alike. No Assembly Member need fear that anything will be foisted on the Assembly before the community is ready, and before the Assembly is ready to take its responsibilities. It would be wrong to put such important powers in the hands of an Assembly that was not ready to accept them. I trust that no nationalist or Unionist will dispute what the Government have done, but essentially we are talking about two double locks rather than a quadruple lock.
	My second point is that because policing is such an important issue, it may be said to have an important context even before the devolution of policing and justice powers. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) is quoted as having said at the weekend that it was imperative for those who are part of an Executive in Northern Ireland to give their support to policing in Northern Ireland. The point has also been labouredif he will forgive me for saying soby the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). Whenever he has explained what is necessary, he has specified that essential requirement.
	It is hard for anyone who reads about democracy in the text books to believe that someone could be part of an Executive, part of the Government of a country, without supporting the law enforcement agency of that country. It is still harder to believe that a member of an Executive would not support, and in many cases would not even recognise, the courts. That is not a proposition that anyone could seriously contemplate. Anyone who wants to be part of Government in Northern Ireland must be determined to urge people to give evidence to the police if they witness events, to contact the police if they are in need, and to encourage the police to operate freely in their areas. That is essential.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim rightly said that merely joining a police force would not be seen as giving support to the police, and that simply signing up to the devolution powers would certainly not be seen as such. Tangible support will consist of Assembly Members' urging those over whom they have influence to support the police, join the police, give evidence to the police and ask the police to go into their areas.

Sammy Wilson: That condition has pertained since 1998, but has not yet been met by members of Sinn Fein. It is entirely wrong for the Secretary of State to describe it as a new condition.

Peter Robinson: I have not heard the Secretary of State say that, and if he believes it to be a new condition, I am surprised that he has not been better briefed. My colleagues and I have often mentioned the issue in the House, so there is nothing new about it.
	We are now reaching a stage at which we want to make very clear the particulars of what giving support to the police, and to our judicial system, means in Northern Ireland. I trust that those with aspirations to be in Government recognise that it would be inconsistent with that position to be part of an organisation that does not recognise the courts, and will not recognise or support the police. Even worse, a policy document from Sinn Fein that we received fairly recently did not merely suggest that Sinn Fein did not support the police, but argued that its members should go out and protest against them actively. There is a long road to travel.
	I think that that demonstrates how difficult it will be for people to come to terms with the devolution of policing and justice powers, and why it will be necessary for Sinn Fein in particular to convince the community in Northern Ireland that it supports law and order and wants the police to be able to operate freely in all parts of Northern Ireland.

William McCrea: As my hon. Friend will know, reports from the Independent Monitoring Commission and from those on the ground acknowledge the existence of a continuing serious threat from the Continuity IRA and the Real IRA. Does he accept that anyone holding ministerial office in any Executive will have to support the police force in the execution of its duty, and support the forces of law and order in the defeat of terrorism? Terrorism has been the scourge of Northern Ireland for so many years that we cannot be ambivalent about the future.

Peter Robinson: I do indeed accept that. Difficult decisions would have to be made if Sinn Fein did support the police. It would have to be asked whether the community were confident that policing and justice powers had been devolved, and whether Sinn Fein should have any role in that. I cannot envisage such circumstances, but my hon. Friend tempts me to consider what situation Sinn Fein might face. It might well face the situation faced by a Minister in the Republicin the Home Office, or whatever it was called in those dayswho, having been in the Provisional IRA, had to line up some of his former colleagues who had continued in the war after he had taken up his democratic position, and have them shot. There would be hard decisions for any member of Sinn Fein to take in those circumstances, but I must point out to my hon. Friend that I cannot envisage them arising immediately.

Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that Mr. De Valera had to do the same with his own people? Did not the first Prime Minister of the Irish Republic make a statement in which he said that there cannot be two police forces or two armies? He said that one police forcethe police force of the statewas to be recognised, and that all others were to be rejected, and that if they were not rejected by the people, they, as the Government, would reject them and remove them.

Peter Robinson: My right hon. Friend is correct, and that is the position that the Government of the Irish Republic adopt to this day. Indeed, it is one reason that the Justice Minister of the Irish Republic, Michael McDowell, gave for not countenancing Sinn Fein's participation in government. He said that, while they retain a link with the Provisional IRA, one could not have two armies in the Irish Republic. However, there is a certain hypocrisy on the part of the Irish Republic, in that they are expecting us to do something that they are not prepared to do.
	The intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) reminds me of  The Irish Times article by Dermot Ahern, which was immensely insulting to the community in Northern Ireland. In essence, he said that these principles can be applied to us, but that they certainly cannot be applied in the Irish Republic. The attitude was, Anything is good enough for those people up there. The general attitude adopted by the Irish Republic's foreign affairs Minister seemed to be, We cannot have Sinn Fein in government, but those people up there should have them because they do not have a normal society. They could not allow Sinn Fein to have any responsibility for policing but, of course, we can. However, if we are coming out of conflict, the need for stable institutions is all the greater. It is all the more important for people to have confidence in our security forces, the police and the justice system.
	So policing is a critical issue, which is why the Minister, in providing these enabling powers, should not get carried away with the prospect of their being taken up immediately. His offer might lie on the table for some time. That said, I do welcome the further option that he provides in amendment No. 3, which allows the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to create a policing and justice departmentset up by their nomineeif the proposal is supported by a cross-community vote in the Assembly. That is another option; however, no one knows whether that or any of the other options will be taken up. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) could well be right: a new idea might arise in the weeks, months and years before this event comes about, and the Government may well have to come back with more legislation.
	I would be more content if the Government focused on what is possible, rather than on what is practically impossible at the moment. I welcome the prospect of the Northern Ireland Assembly being brought out of suspension, if events go as well as the Government and my colleagues and I hope. Although the Assembly created under the 2006 legislation is not running, it is certainly up. I trust that the position of the Social, Democratic and Labour partywhich is willing to participate, to discuss these issues and to put them before the Governmentwill be taken on board, because it is largely the same as that adopted by me and my colleagues. We do not want to be part of a talking shop. That said, we do want to talk about these issues and to reach agreement on them, but we will point out to the Government that if an agreement is reached, they must ensure that the wishes of the elected representatives in Northern Ireland are implemented in respect not just of the issues before us, but of wider issues.

Nigel Dodds: I want to make one or two brief points. We have discussed a wide range of issues in some detail. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) painted various scenarios in convoluted detail, some of which were extremely hypothetical, and which may or may not come about. He painted an unhappy picture of extreme deviousness and lack of trustnot that that is uncommon, perhaps, in politics. If such safeguards as he described have to be implemented, that suggests that the devolution of policing and justice will never come about. He referred, in the context of appointing a Speaker, to Caesar doing in Brutus, although today we perhaps have Cleopatra in the Chair of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It appears that, in the process of deciding who should occupy the Chair, there would be a complete blood-bath.
	That does not bear thinking about, but we should all be reassured by the fact that the scenario that we are contemplating today is extremely unlikely. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that it is not likely to happen in his lifetime, and I agree that it is extremely unlikely that the circumstances will be such that the people of Northern Ireland will be sufficiently confident to contemplate allowing a party such as Sinn Feinor, indeed, the Progressive Unionist partyanywhere near justice and policing in Northern Ireland. We must bear that point in mind during this debate.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman says that it will be a long time before the community in Northern Ireland contemplates Sinn Fein's being involved in policing and justice. Does he think that that is true even if a Sinn Fein representative were serving as Deputy First Minister?

Nigel Dodds: The hon. Gentleman raises a point that perhaps gets to the core of this issue. As has been pointed out, we have emphasised in recent days that support for law and order and the police must be demonstrated not just by joining the Policing Board. We must remember that Sinn Fein joined the Northern Ireland Executive while they were quite prepared to undermine democracy and government. Signing up to the Executive did not make them democrats, and signing up to the Policing Board does not make them supporters of the police. Before they can be considered fit for officebe it in policing and justice, or any in other positionthey must support all aspects of policing and urge people to give information to the police. They must also do so in a credible way, instead of simply issuing a statement that enables them to clear a particular hurdle. I hope that that is clear.
	I am somewhat concerned by the attitude that Ministers from the Prime Minister downward are adopting on this issue. They seem to be saying that this is a new precondition, but it is not. If someone is committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means and says that there has to be a complete end to criminality, ipso facto, they have to support police. If they are against criminality but do not support the police, in effect, they are saying, We'll organise the stamping out of criminality, through the structures and organisations that we have in place. That is unacceptable in a democratic society, and it is certainly an unacceptable view for any party that aspires to be in government.

Mark Durkan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I hope that he can help us further. He pointed out that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said earlier that we might not see devolution of justice and policing in his lifetime, particularly if there is a Sinn Fein Minister. However, the hon. Gentleman did not say the same about the prospect of a Sinn Fein member becoming Deputy First Minister. He also said that he could not see a First Minister and Deputy First Minister appointing anybody other than people from their own parties. So will the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) please clarify the relationship between the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and the devolution of policing and justice in that regard?

Nigel Dodds: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but my hon. Friend made it clear that when he was talking about who would be First Minister and Deputy First Minister, he was doing so in the context of the legislation before us and the various scenarios that might arise. He also made it clear, as has our party, that the prospects of reaching that situation, in which we would consider proposals for the Northern Ireland Assembly on the issue of devolution of policing and justice, are remote. In fact, they are so remote that it is difficult to envisage when it might happen.
	As for the holding of ministerial office, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister has said that parties that want to take part in the government of Northern Ireland should support the policing, but that those are matters for the medium term and which must be worked on or must happenas if we can somehow expect that to happen in due course, in parallel with the Executive being up and running. That will not wash.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the remarks by Dermot Ahern, the Irish Foreign Minister. It is completely unacceptable for him to tell people in Northern Ireland that he would not share power with Sinn Fein in the Republic because it does not support the Garda Siochana, but that it is acceptable for it to be in government in Northern Ireland because we have been in a conflict situation. Our people, our constituents, our kith and kin have been murdered and butchered by the people who Dermot Ahern says are acceptable as Government Ministers, and they still do not support the police. What sort of message does that send to the people of Northern Ireland?
	Dermot Ahern said in effect that it was acceptable for Sinn Fein not to support the police because all the recommendations of the Patten report have not been implemented. He was pressed on which recommendations he meant, and he said that Sinn Fein had not signed up. I am sure that the SDLP was not very grateful for those comments. It was diplomatic in its response, in public, but I am sure that it has let the Irish Government know how it feels.
	In those remarks, Dermot Ahern effectively told Sinn Fein, It's okay, you don't have to sign up to policing and justice, or give your support to the police. We accept your position of being in government but not supporting the police. That is a very dangerous situation, and the Government should be aware that this is a matter of fundamental importance to all the people of Northern Ireland. That is why the decision, in that context, of the Ulster Unionist party to embrace the PUP as a formal part of its party structure in the Assembly has such incredible implications for the political process in Northern Ireland. I welcome what the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has put on record today, but the reason that her party leader gave her in private conversation is not the reason he gave publicly at the time, or in the Assembly. He said that he had done it purely as a power grab, to grab an extra ministry. In fact, if he had waited, he would not have needed to do that at all. He has got all the pain, with no gain whatever.

Ian Paisley: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are getting into dangerous territory? The Government are bypassing the conditions that were laid down by the Prime Minister in this very House. A statement has been issued by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that the UUP's decision to subsume Mr. Ervine was a surprise, but a matter for the parties. I do not know what he means by that. What parties? Healso said that Sinn Fein was in a much stronger position to be on the Executive since the IRA had decommissioned. He said:
	The UVF have not ended their paramilitary campaign...They are still involved in criminality in a big way and all of those things are things which the IRA have promised to deliver on and is delivering on.
	That is giving a green light to two parties to keep on their way. They cannot do what the Prime Minister said that they would do and still be in government and appoint people to office.

Nigel Dodds: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for drawing the House's attention to those significant remarks by the Secretary of State today. Is it not amazing that the Secretary of State can reveal that, in his estimation, Sinn Fein is more qualified for governmentor is nearer to being qualifiedthan the UUP, with its formal links to the PUP? Who would have thought that that would happen? Reg Empey and the UUP will have to grapple with that issue. They have added considerable volatility to the situation, as we approach whatever deadline may be arriving.
	There will be no double standards from this party. We have made our position clear on the entry into government of parties associated with terrorism and violence. I would have hoped that having made an issue of IRA decommissioning, Reg Empey would have taken that same position consistently, but sadly those hopes have been dashed.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of his constituents,Mr. Raymond McCord, whose son was murdered by the UVF, met the leader of the UUP on Monday morning? Before that meeting, another UUP Assembly Member, Mr. Copeland from East Belfast, made an offer to Mr. McCord of the use of an office if he would keep quiet and not criticise the decision. The UUP is now into bribing victims. Is my hon. Friend also aware that Mr. McCord was informed by Sir Reg Empey that David Ervine was the third MLA that he had approached about signing up to their group, the other two having rejected

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should relate their remarks to the new clause.

Nigel Dodds: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In considering the clauses, which relate to the conditions under which policing and justice powers may be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly at some point in the future, it is important and relevant to consider the parties involved and the conditions that they have to meet. In that context, the Secretary of State's comments today, referred to by my right hon. Friend, are significant. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) is also significant. I know Raymond McCord, he is one of my constituents and I have spoken to him on many occasions. I am aware of the hurt and the pain that he and his family have gone through as the result of the death of his son at the hands of the UVF, and many other people have been in touch with our party to express their utter revulsion at the latest development with the UUP. The suggestion that the UUP, through Mr. Copeland, would attempt to bribe Mr. McCord into silence adds another dimension of revulsion, and it poses serious questions about the judgment of that party.

Alasdair McDonnell: I hesitate to waste time, but I wish to set the record straight. Mr. Raymond McCord is one of my constituents: he lives on Purdysburn hill, near Newtownbreda. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) has misled the Chamber.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should think carefully about the words that he has just used. He may wish to reframe his remarks.

Alasdair McDonnell: I withdraw what I said.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I hope that hon. Members will be a little more precise in their remarks about the new clause.

Nigel Dodds: For the vast bulk of the time,Mr. McCord has been a constituent in Belfast, North. Certainly, his son was murdered while he was living there.
	In conclusion, these new clauses touch on wider political issues. As I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Foyle, we could spend a long time on minutiae and mechanics and lose the context of what we are discussing. The latter part of the debate has focused on the real political issues at stake. There has been much talk about locks, triple locks, and quadruple locks. Some people will be on the side of the locksmiths and will try to build in safeguards, while others will be on the side of those who want to pick the lock and sneak into Government by the back door.
	We are on the side of the locksmiths and are building in safeguards. I am glad that the new clause means that we will have, not the triple lock that my party called for originally, but a quadruple lock. That quadruple lock requires the approval of the Secretary of State and this House, and the 50:50:50 approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I welcome that, for precisely the reason that the leader of the SDLP does notit changes the Belfast agreement. Moreover, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have to agree before any proposal can be brought forward.

Patrick Cormack: I had not intended to take part in the debate, but I have listened with considerable interest to speeches that have been rather longer than were originally promised. I completely understand that and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have been very generous in allowing a wide-ranging debate on the new clause. I hope that it does not sound patronising if I say that I think that you have been right to do so. Events have taken place in the Province this week that cast a shadow, and hon. Members were bound to refer to them. I thank you very much for allowing them to do so.
	I support the new clause because, in essence, it is impeccable. The Government are saying that in no circumstances should matters of policing and justice be devolved unless there is a credible and virtually unanimous wish across the Province, encapsulated by the agreement of the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the nationalist and Unionist communities, that that should happen. All of that is right, and I applaud the Minister for bringing the new clause forward.
	I listened with mounting perplexity to the long speech from the leader of the SDLP, which certainly deserves to earn him a doctorate in Machiavellian studies. He set out so many conditions and preconditions, and anticipated so many difficulties, that the Minister was right to resist his blandishments.
	The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) referred earlier to last week's appearance by Secretary of State before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. It is always an interesting session when he comes before the Committee, and last week was no exception. He always treats the Committee with total courtesy, and is an extremely effective witness, but he did rather equivocate last week.
	One after another, hon. Members asked whether the acceptance of the rule of law and support for the police should not be preconditions of participation in government. The transcript shows that the Secretary of State did not give an unequivocal and binding answer, yet the new clause contains just such a commitment [ Interruption.] It would be nice to have the attention of all those from the Province.
	The new clause says that matters of policing and justice cannot be devolved without the agreement about which there has been much discussion and which the DUP support very strongly. On the other hand, it makes it clear that people will be allowed into government and positions of executive responsibility who do not accept the rule of law or support the policing of the Province.
	That is a remarkable and frankly indefensible paradox, and I beg the Minister to talk to the Secretary of State about it. There will be an opportunity to debate the matter in greater detail later this afternoon, although I shall not necessarily take part. That is why I making some relevant remarks now.
	We cannot cherry-pick in the way that is proposed if we are to have a proper and credible Assembly in Northern Ireland, with an Executive who can command widespread and lasting support. To establish proper normality in the Province, we must remember what government means, and insist absolutely that it is upheld by those who participate in it. People cannot uphold government if they do not uphold the rule of law, and they cannot do that unless they uphold those who are given responsibility for keeping the peace.
	I hope that the debate will lead to a bit of a rethink, and that the Secretary of State will give us an absolute assurance that cherry-picking will end. I hope that a welcome will be extended to people who change their views and foreswear criminality. It is impossible to forget, but there must be a willingness to draw a line in respect of the past. The absolute requirement, however, is that the people with executive responsibility in government sign up to the rule of law, absolutely and completely. That must be accepted totally if matters to do with justice and policing are ever to be devolved.
	Until such matters are devolved, we will not have a proper devolved Government in the Province. That is why it is essential that we move towards the acceptance that I have described. The Government are right to insist on the preconditions in new clause 3, and I applaud them for bringing that provision forward, but I also implore them to accept the logic of the argument implicit in it. There can be no fudge over the next six months that causes us to land up with an Assembly that has built-in obsolescence from the day of its first meeting.
	I am one of those who are concerned about the future of the Province of Northern Ireland. We want it to be treated with the same degree of respect as Wales, Scotland and England, and to enjoy the same degree of normality that obtains in those countries. That is why we must insist that there can be no fudge in this matter. That is crucially important.
	I support what the Minister is asking the House to agree to this afternoon, and I do so without any equivocation whatsoever. However, the Government must be equally unequivocal in the demands that they make on those who would aspire to Government in the Province.

William McCrea: The heading for the new clause is Conditions for devolving policing and justice matters. My colleagues who have spoken in the debate have made it abundantly clear that, for us, there can be no new conditions. The conditions for the devolution of policing and justice matters are also the conditions for a devolved Government, which are, as we have said so many times before, that there must be not only a complete and absolute end to terrorism with a renunciation of terrorism and all acts of terrorism, but a complete and final turning away from criminal activities and a renunciation of them. That includes those who still live on the rewards of crime. We do not close our hearts and minds to a fact that many people have forgotten: 20 million is still in the hands of the Provisionals. We cannot allow people to continue to live on the fruit of their past criminal activity.
	We are making no new conditions for the devolution of policing and justice matters; the conditions for any democratic society are that everyone must uphold the rule of law and support those who exercise it in the Province on behalf of Her Majesty and Her Majesty's Government. There can be no fuel laundering, no money laundering, no extortion, no intimidation and no continuation of the wide range of criminal activity that the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein-IRA have so successfully carried out for so many years. We demand an absolute end to such activity. I want to make it clear that this is not a new condition laid down by the Democratic Unionist party; it is a statement of our position right from the beginning. We shall not change our principles for the Government or anyone else; we shall not sacrifice the principles of a democratic society.

Nicholas Winterton: I say with pride that I am delighted that my hon. Friend has allowed me to intervene. For many years, I have taken an active and positive interest in Northern Ireland. Does he accept that the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), as Chairman of the Northern Ireland Committee, were absolutely right? There can be no devolved Government unless all parties in Northern Ireland accept the rule of law and recognise the police and justice in the Province. Without that, there can be no meaningful devolved Government in Northern Ireland who will encourage the involvement of all its peoples.

William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. For many years, both he and his good wife, the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton), have indeed had the interests of Northern Ireland at heart. I wholeheartedly agree that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) exactly set out the principles of democracy, but I do not accept that terrorists should hold up devolved Government in Northern Ireland. The Social Democratic and Labour party should have the imagination and vision to join the rest of us in a devolved, cross-community Government who ostracise those who carry on criminal and terrorist activity.
	We have constantly suggested to the SDLP that there could be a voluntary coalition among true democrats in Northern Ireland. That would give great heart to the people of Northern Ireland and would be a positive way forward. If the SDLP ties itself to the likes of Sinn Fein-IRA, it will be tying itself to a broken stick. Sinn Fein-IRA have proved that they are not democrats working in accordance with the principles of democracythey are not, therefore, meeting the conditions.
	The rest of usthe people of Northern Irelandshould not be tied by criminals and terrorists. True democrats should stand shoulder to shoulder, side by side, and give the people hope and a visionary way forward that will give us a good devolved Government who are not undermined by the constant threat of whether their members will be involved in terrorist atrocity or whether another stash of arms will be found. We need stable government, and the conditions for devolving policing and justice matters are the same as those that will establish truly acceptable, democratic devolved government in Northern Ireland.
	We in the DUP want to see that day; we want it for the good of the people of Northern Ireland, but there is one price that we will not pay. We are not willing to undermine the principles of democracy. If we do that, the foundations will be rotten and, as I have said so many times, a house built on sand will surely fall when the day of testing comes. My Saviour set out that principle when he talked about the house built on sand. The house that will withstand every test is the house built on rock. Our foundation must be the rock of democracy and we will accept nothing less. We must have those conditions, which is why I am happy to support everything that my right hon. and hon. Friends have said in the debate. I trust that the Secretary of State will get the message. We are not moving one iota from the principles we have set out in the past.

David Hanson: We have debated the new clause for about an hour and 45 minutes, but I think that there is an element of consensus among Members. The issues set out in the amendments have received a welcome from DUP Membersthe right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds). The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Committee, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) welcomed the principal Government amendments and there has been no opposition to them from my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). There is a general consensus that our amendments will help to secure support in due course for the devolution of policing and criminal justice in Northern Ireland.

Mark Durkan: Will the Minister take a correction? I do not want to cause problems or difficulties, but we certainly do not support the Government's principal amendment.

David Hanson: Perhaps I was too hopeful of the circumstances, but there has been an element of consensus in today's debate. At times, given the number of times that locks have been mentioned, I feel that I am in the possession of more locks than Chubb at the moment, but we make progress.
	The principle behind all this remains the same as the principle that I elucidated in my opening comments: can we get a position whereby the Assembly has the opportunity to consider whether it wishes policing and criminal justice to be devolved? I believe that the amendments provide an opportunity for rational consideration, which gives the opportunity for cross-community support and empowers to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to propose that support to ensure that the Assembly has its full consideration. Again, I am in danger of repeating myself, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, or his successor, must then agree to that proposal and would bring it to the House for its endorsement.
	I fully accept that all the points mentioned by the hon. Members for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea), for Belfast, East, for Belfast, North, for South Staffordshire and, indeed, others have pointed to the fact that there is still a range of difficulties that relate to the conditions being right for the process to commence, but I do not know whether or not that will happen in the lifetime of the hon. Member for Belfast, East. I wish I knew how long he will live; I am sure that he will have a long and happy life. However, the key conditions are there to allow that mechanism to begin when that confidence is in place.
	I recognise that there are many difficulties and I am in danger of straying into discussing later amendments on the rule of law, which I am happy to debate now, and there are real issues about the definitions. We have tabled further amendments for later in consideration, but I repeat what I have said in the House previously: the Government, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I wish to see Sinn Fein sign up to policing and to support policing operations in Northern Ireland. That is a key element in building the confidence that hon. Members wish to see, and I certainly urge those hon. Members from Sinn Fein who are not in the House today to consider that proposal in considering these matters in the House and elsewhere. It is important that they support the police for reasons that are self-evident to every hon. Member who sits in the House today.

Patrick Cormack: Rather than being a key element, should not the Minister use the words absolute requirement?

David Hanson: We will debate those matters in due course. If the hon. Gentleman, who holds the distinguished position of Chairman of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, looks, as I know that he has done, at the pledge of office that is in place for Ministers, he will see that the very points that he makes are intrinsic in that. [Hon. Members: They are not.] Let me finish the point. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done, I have also said that, as part of the discussions on the way forward for the Assembly, the question of discussion on the pledge of office is open for consideration, and a strengthening of that pledge of office could be considered in due course by the Assembly and by the Government.

Nigel Dodds: Is that it?

David Hanson: I simply say that I recognise the concerns that hon. Members have raised today. We will have an opportunity later to discuss those concerns in more detail, and I am in danger of drifting into issues that are important in relation to these clauses but are subject to further amendment later in the day.

Ian Paisley: I am very interested in what the Minister has said. I should like him to tell the House, and to read it out, where the police are mentioned in the undertaking that he says that the new Ministers all had to take.

David Hanson: Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman. The pledge of office that all Ministers must affirm in the Assembly before taking up posts already requires a commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means. Amendments made in 2003 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 facilitate the consideration of the Independent Monitoring Commission's recommendations and provides safeguards where Ministers and parties fail to observe the pledge of office. As I have said, the pledge of office, as currently constituted, provides for adherence to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. As we have already made clear, if the parties want to change the pledge of office and they can agree on a form of words in the context of an agreement on a package of other strand 1 issues, I am certainly willing to take those matters forward.

Patrick Cormack: I am trying to be helpful. What I should like is a pledge that says, I unreservedly uphold the rule of law and give my total and absolute support to those who are commissioned to protect the public in the police.

David Hanson: Again, we are in danger of going into debates that we will have laterI am happy to do thatbut as I said in Committee, the principle of supporting policing and the rule of law is something that I wish to uphold. I wish to see that happen, and I have no problem with that. However, as I have said during the course of the debate, it is possible for a Minister to have disagreements with the police and there is a whole range of circumstances in which a Minister could exercise judgment in those disagreements. I agree with the substance of what hon. Members are saying, but it is difficult to put things in the form that the later amendments do. We are in danger of having a debate about later amendments and I do not wish to incur your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Sammy Wilson: Does the Minister accept that we are not talking about having disagreements with the police? We are talking about a party that discourages people from having any contact with the police or giving the police any evidence or support to tackle crime. That is totally different.

David Hanson: I want that full support for the police to be visualised in an operational way by support from all parties for policing. I want Sinn Fein to take places on the Policing Board, as does the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins). I want to see that support. However, there are specific reasons why the Government cannot accept the phraseology of later amendments.
	I want to refocus the debate on the fact that there is an element of consensus among Members here today. I welcome the welcome of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle for the proposals that I have made in response to the concerns that he put to me in Committee. HoweverI mean this in the nicest possible waythere is a danger that the amendments that he has tabled will mean that we will not just micro-manage some of the circumstances, but micro-micro-manage them. I understand and have some sympathy with what he has said, in that everything that he has mentioned in support of his amendments is accurate and relates to things that could occur. However, I am trying to envisage circumstances in which they would. What I am saying is genuinely intended to help him. He talked about d'Hondt. It is true that a justice Minister counts as a d'Hondt post, but if a Minister resigns or is dismissed and a new Minister is appointed, d'Hondt would be run again. The Bill already provides for that. So, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister cannot gain extra seats by dismissing Ministers from other parties in the way that he has suggested.
	Again, I understand the possibilities but, as even the hon. Members for Belfast, East and for Belfast, North recognised, we are discussing things that may or may not ever occur. I accept that they could occur and that everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle said is possible. I will certainly reflect on those things. If other parties feel that we need to micro-micro-manage those issues, I am happy to reflect on those points in another place. I am trying to put in place a broad framework that will mean that devolution can take place and we have the mechanisms in place to put in the locks to which we have all referred. Although we can certainly adopt the principles of what has been said, I do not necessarily wish to micro-manage at that level of detail the possibilities that exist, but if other parties wish to do so I am happy to reflect on those points.

Mark Durkan: I just want to correct the Minister. If a vacancy arises by dismissal, resignation or some other means in the Justice Ministry, as created under the Bill, it is not the case that there is an automatic re-run of d'Hondtbecause, after all, the appointments are not d'Hondt appointmentsany more than if a Minister resigns under d'Hondt or a party resigns on bloc under d'Hondt that forces a total rerun of d'Hondt. It does not.

David Hanson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution, but my understanding, and that of my officials who are concerned with this matter, is as I have just outlined to the House. His understanding appears to be different. There are issues on which we fundamentally disagree, but this is an issue on which I am just looking at the practicalities of the level of micro-management. I think that what I have said is the correct position; he may have a different interpretation. However, in both cases we are talking about situations that may occur in which, in effect, the First and Deputy First Ministers potentially would have to rat on their own parties as well. I am just looking at the mechanics of all this and trying to envisage circumstances in which such a thing could happen. My hon. Friend's points undoubtedly have an element of validity, but I cannot envisage such circumstances. I would be grateful if he would not press his amendments to a Division. I will be happy to reflect on them with officials, and if other parties have views they can put them forward.
	I do not wish to comment in detail on a matter that several hon. Members have mentioned in passing, but I will put a couple of points on the record. There has been discussion about the relationship between the PUP and UUP and the announcements that were made. As I said before you took the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the matter is subject to legal discussion regarding the Assembly Speaker's recognition of the UUP-PUP grouping as a party for Assembly purposes. She is likely to make a ruling later this week. I have heard what has been said about the political elements of the situation, but it would be inappropriate for me to comment in detail on the legality of the situation because that will be subject to the Speaker's ruling in the Assembly.
	Given what has been said about the politics of any relationship, it is important that the Secretary of State has undertaken today to recognise the fact that the republican movement has taken steps. Admittedly, for some parties it has not gone far enough to move away from the violence that has occurred. Although there is more work to be done, the Independent Monitoring Commission reports indicate that the republican movement has taken serious steps to move away from criminality.
	What the Secretary of State has said today emphasises the importance of loyalist paramilitaries undertaking to go down the same route. It is not acceptable for me or the Secretary of State that a situation exists in which there is officially no ceasefire from loyalist paramilitaries. I ask both loyalist paramilitaries and dissident republicansthe Continuity IRA and Real IRA, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for South Antrimto abandon immediately their activities that lead to potential terrorism, threats and murder. That was the point that the Secretary of State was making. The relationships between political parties in the Assembly are a matter for those parties and the legal judgment of the Assembly Speaker.

Patrick Cormack: I would like to put it on the record that when the Secretary of State came beforethe Northern Ireland Affairs Committee last week, no one was more rigorous in questioning him about loyalist paramilitaries and their nefarious deeds than the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon).

David Hanson: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) for the work that shehas done. On individual cases, such as that of her constituent Lisa Dorrian, she has been relentless in her pursuit of not only justice, but condemnation, which is a key matter than she holds dear to her heart.

William McCrea: There is not a potential threat from Continuity IRA or Real IRA. A bomb was primed in Londonderry and was headed, we believe, towards a police station. A bomb was being set in Lurgan. That was not a potential threat, but an active, real threat that terrorists were posing against the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland.

David Hanson: I trust that the hon. Gentleman knows that I share his concern and condemnation. I also know that the bomb threats that occurred in the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle and the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) were real and serious threats from dissident republicans. Again, to put the point into context in relation to the amendments, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was indicating that the republican movement has taken steps towards a more peaceful road. There is still work to be done, but there is clear intent and clear movement. The Secretary of State issued a challenge, with the words that the right hon. Member for North Antrim read to the House, to the dissident republican movement and the loyalist movement to take the same path.

Peter Robinson: The quotation that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) put on the record went beyond that. Does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State in his indication that Sinn Fein is now in a stronger position to be in an Executive than the Ulster Unionist party?

David Hanson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have been in the Chamber and have not been able to see the Secretary of State's words. It is my intention, and my view, that we should continue to welcome the movement by republicans towards a more peaceful road and that we should condemn the actions of dissident republicans and loyalist paramilitaries in the threatpotential, real or otherwisethat they pose to the community. I will not be satisfied in this post, and nor will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is responsible for security, until such time as we have a definitive ceasefire from the loyalists and the dissident republicans, and verification of that by the IMC in due course.
	With the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, there is an element of consensus on the Government amendments. I appreciate the welcome from the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for Belfast, North. I also appreciate my hon. Friend's welcome for the assistance that I gave him.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister clear up one issue raised by the Secretary of State in evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee last week? In the context of the Bill, he said:
	I think there will be rightly increased pressure on Sinn Fein to deliver their end in terms of commitments. That is to say, once the Bill has received Royal Assent there is then no reason for them not to move on policing, and I think they will.
	What exactly did he mean by saying that Sinn Fein will move on to policing once the Bill receives Royal Assent?

David Hanson: Again, there are two aspects of policy to consider. I believe that my right hon. Friendand, potentially, Sinn Feinwant police and criminal justice devolved to the Assembly in due course. For that to happen, for the reasons that we all know, my right hon. Friend and I want Sinn Fein to be involved in supporting policing, because policing, criminal justice and the rule of law in the broader sense are central and essential to the democratic society in Northern Ireland, as they are elsewhere.
	We should continue to encourage Sinn Fein to work towards playing its full part on the Policing Board and in supporting the police in their community. I recognise that we are not there yet, but I am very hopeful, as is my new colleague, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, that we will do that over time. Ultimately, I want devolution to take place, but I recognise, on all these matters, that it will only take place with the confidence of both sides of the community. I have put in place mechanisms in the amendments so that if Sinn Fein and others in the nationalist community sign up to policing and the conditions arise to devolve criminal justice and policing in due course, that will be done if the Assembly, along with the Secretary of the State and the House, want it.

Ian Paisley: What the people of Northern Ireland will wonder about is the Secretary of State's statement that the Ulster Unionist party is now in a weaker position than Sinn Fein. He knows very well that the IMC report was unequivocal in its condemnation of the Ulster Volunteer Force. Three paragraphs of the report spell out that it is a terrorist body and is engaged in terrorism. How, then, can he say that there is a difference between the activity of Sinn Fein and the activity of the UVF, and that because the official Unionist party has gone into a coalition with the UVF spokesman, it is in a weaker position? We cannot balance aspects of terrorism. Terrorism is terrorism. It is not possible to say that one part is a bit weaker than another. How do we get over that problem?

David Hanson: If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman has been entirely consistent in his condemnation of violence and terrorism. The points that he has made over the past few days have confirmed that consistency. I would simply say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State believes that the republican movement, in the broadest sense, is moving towards a more peaceful route, has been verified by the IMC to that effect and is undertaking moves that, I hope, will lead to the restoration of the Assembly. I have not seen his remarks, but my understanding of what he said today is that there needs to be the same movement from Continuity IRA and Real IRA, the dissident republicans, and there needs to be the same movement from those loyalist groups that are currently not on ceasefire and are undertaking activity that has led to the deaths of a number of individuals over the12 months that I have held this office. I condemn all violence and all that paramilitary activity. I want to see an end to it, as I know do hon. Members on all sidesof the House. The Government are working towards that end.
	We have had a very wide debate. I go back to the amendments and the new clause that are before us. I think that there is the potential for reasonable consensus on these matters. I hope that we have given greater strength to the Assembly's powers to have cross-community support, that we have given extra models, which my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle has requested, and that we have put in place a mechanism that will ensure that if the Assembly wishes to devolve in due course, it has strong powers to do so. I commend my new clause and amendments to the House and I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2
	  
	Criminal Damage (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) order 1977 Amendment

'After subsection 4(a) of the Criminal Damage (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 there is inserted
	Any building to which Artic1e 12 of the Rates (Capital Values, etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 applies..'.  [Mr. Dodds.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Nigel Dodds: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that buildings to which artic1e 12 of the Rates (Capital Values, etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 applies come under subsection 4, as opposed to subsection 5, of the Criminal Damage (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. Community halls, Orange halls, halls used by the Ancient Order of Hibernians and other types of hall recently gained exemption from rates in Northern Ireland. That move was widely welcomed throughout the community as beneficial for local communities. It relieved a major financial burden for those who run such halls on both sides of the community: on the Unionist side and on the nationalist side. Under the new clause, those halls would also be subject to subsection 4 of the criminal damage compensation provisions, rather than subsection 5. That would bring them into line with agricultural premises.
	Other properties have to prove, for the purposes of getting compensation from the Northern Ireland Office, that three or more people were involved in an attack or commission of an offence that resulted in damage to premises, or the Chief Constable has to issue a certificate indicating that it was carried out by a proscribed organisation. Agricultural premises, on the other hand, are not subject to such stringent provisions. In that case, if the act is deemed to have been carried out maliciously or wantonly, that alone is the condition that applies and compensation is payable.
	Through their recent derating provisions, the Government have recognised the valuable role played by the halls that we are talking aboutcommunity halls, Orange halls, halls used by those in the nationalist community. They provide an invaluable community resource. That applies to urban areas, but it is particularly applicable to rural areas. Lest we run away with the idea that the proposal would only benefit people who run those halls, many of them, like parish halls throughout the United Kingdom, are used for a wide range of purposes. In Northern Ireland, they are used by credit unions, community groups and youth services for a vast array of community activities, and their use has expanded a great deal in recent years. The removal of a large financial burden following the introduction of derating was welcomed in Northern Ireland, and I congratulate the Government on taking on board the proposal, which we pressed strongly in our discussions and negotiations with them.
	Insurance is even more financially crippling for those halls than the rates levied on them. Orange halls often make their own provision, which is very costly, because many insurance companies refuse to offer cover for community halls, particularly Orange halls. The cover that is available is extremely expensive, because of the number and extent of sectarian attacks suffered by the halls and the problems that they face in obtaining compensation for such attacks. Sometimes, people seeking insurance for an Orange hall approached more than 30 different companies before finding one that provides cover, and even then at an exorbitant price. They sometimes have to pay four-figure sums for insurance that would cost 100 or 150 in Scotland and England, which is a massive difference. There have been dozens of sectarian attacks in recent years, particularly on Orange halls, which have suffered extensive damage and, in many cases, been razed to the ground. Those attacks are usually carried out in the dead of night, with few witnesses, and they deprive a local community of an invaluable resource.

Lady Hermon: I support very strongly the new clause tabled by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. He will have noticed that the Minister expressed support for the Government document, A Shared Future. Would it not be helpful if the Government did not just talk the talk but walked the walk and supported the proposal, which usefully acknowledges the traditions and cultures not just of the Orange Order but of the Ancient Order of Hibernian?

Nigel Dodds: I very much welcome the hon. Lady's support. She is quite right. The case for the halls has been made, and the argument has been won, as evidenced by the fact that the Government decided exceptionally to introduce derating for the halls only a few months ago. The principle and precedent have been established: the new clause would simply remove a major financial burden that has an even greater impact than rates, so I hope that the Minister has it in his gift to respond positively to the proposal.

Peter Robinson: My hon. Friend is making a powerful caseone so compelling that no reasonable Minister could resist it. The fact that compensation is not paid after halls are destroyed makes them all the more a target. In the sectarian attacks that have taken place, there is the knowledge that the responsibility and the cost will be borne directly by the Orangemen or the Ancient Order of Hibernians concerned. That makes it much more attractive because the perpetrators know the pain that will result from the attack.

Nigel Dodds: My hon. Friend has highlighted a significant aspect. Those who carry out the attacks see that they are hurting the Orange community directly. Those who attack other halls on the nationalist side are doing the same on that side. They are impacting directly on the community. That, as my hon. Friend points out, provides an incentive for further attacks. There is no greater incentive for the arsonists, vandals and hooligans who carry out the attacks than to see halls that they have attacked previously lying derelict and, in some cases, razed to the ground for months and in many cases years on end, as people struggle to get compensation from their insurers, if they have insurers, or from the Northern Ireland Office, which refuses to provide insurance. They have to resort to raising the funds themselves, which in many cases is virtually impossible.
	The way that the system operates is an incentive for arsonists to go on attacking isolated halls. I should draw the attention of the House to the areas affected. I have a list of the arson attacks on Orange halls. I do not have a complete list of all the halls that have been attacked throughout Northern Ireland, but last year there were attacks on three Orange halls in County Tyrone, two in County Down, another one in County Tyrone, one in County Antrim, one in Armagh, two in Belfast and another one in Armagh. The attacks are widespread throughout the Province and are having a major impact on local communities.

William McCrea: The list that my hon. Friend read out reflects the fact that the halls often represent a small, and in the local area a minority, community. Local people therefore are not able to pay for the rebuilding of the hall. My hon. Friend mentioned halls that were attacked in Tyrone. Those were isolated Protestant communities in a large nationalist or republican area. The attack on the hall was an attack on the culture of a small minority community.

Nigel Dodds: My hon. Friend is right. Halls that have been targetedfor example, in Castlederg, Strabane, Altnaveigh in Newry, and Whiterock in Belfast, near my constituencyare all situated in areas where the Protestant Unionist community is very much in the minority. That is a feature of the preponderance of attacks that have taken place, though it is not exclusively the case. They are seen as attacks on vulnerable communities, depriving them of what is for many of them their only local community resource.
	I know that the Minister takes such matters very seriously. In recent months, he has spent a long time looking into issues in deprived Unionist areas in particular, and deprived areas generally. He has spoken to many people in local communities in Belfast and in rural areas. I know that he has heard directly from many organisations, community groups and individuals who make extensive use of Orange halls and other halls, and who have told him how important it is that those facilities continue to be made available for local communities in their areas.
	The new clause is in line with the Government's recent derating of Orange halls, and it is all of a piece with the proposals announced by the Minister recently, when he said that he was in the business of trying to bring about regeneration and give confidence to deprived Unionist and loyalist areas. If the Government were to adopt the amendment, it would be seen as a positive step in not only Unionist communities, but nationalist communities.
	The amendment would not cost the Government a considerable amount of money. They may say that we must not open the floodgates to large amounts of Government expenditure, but the fact that they have been prepared to move on the issue of the rates indicates that they recognise the issue.
	The Minister followed through on his consultation process in those communities with a 33 million package, and something similar could be done to help communities in not only Belfast, but throughout Northern Ireland. The DUP welcomed that package, but we recognise that a lot of it was centred on deprived areas, particularly in Greater Belfast. We accept that the bulk of the most deprived areas are in Belfast, but we have also made the point that the process should not stop there and that more needs to be done for rural areas and the west of the Province. This is a tremendous opportunity for the Government to take that process forward and implement in a practical yet modest way a measure that would give a tremendous fillip to communities throughout Northern Ireland.
	I urge the Minister to accept the amendment. It is clear that the current regulations, which require proof that a hall has been attacked unlawfully, maliciously and wantonly by three or more persons unlawfully, riotously or tumultuously assembled, or as a result of an act committed maliciously by a person actingon behalf of or in connection with an unlawful association, are often unworkable, because in a huge number of cases it is impossible to prove that those conditions were met. Such attacks often take place in the dead of night in isolated areas. Everyone in Northern Ireland knows that the motivation behind attacks on community halls is sectarian, yet obtaining compensation for such an attack can, even when it is done successfully, be tortuous and involve extremely costly insurance premiums.
	Such premises should be categorised in the same way as agricultural premises, which have been categorised in Northern Ireland for the precise reasons that I have enunciated. Agricultural premises were targeted in the dead of night and, although everybody knew why it was happening, the matter could not be proved. Historically, the Government have recognised that certain types of buildings and premises deserve special categorisation, because they are in isolated areas and are difficult to protect and defend, and Unionist and nationalist halls across the community deserve to be placed in that category. I trust that the Minister will respond positively to the amendment.

Lembit �pik: I want to add two thoughts to the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, North(Mr. Dodds). First, it seems that there is some justification for saying that in certain circumstances in which natural justice would point towards a compensation payout, such payouts have been prevented by the strictures outlined by the hon. Gentleman, North, because the conditions are difficult to prove. He cites the example of a rural and isolated premises that might be subject to an arson attack. The same thing can happen in urban areas. Will the Minister outline his understanding of the extent to which this is a problem?
	My second concern is that it looks as though an accident of circumstance can mean that an attack in two different situations will lead to very different outcomes as regards compensation, through no fault of the person making the compensation claim. What is the Minister's view of that apparent double standard? I know that he would agree that it is an unintended consequence of the Bill, but it strikes me that the new clause could resolve the disparity. It would be terribly undesirable were compensation not to be paid out in some situations. I hope that he can either accept the new clause or provide clarity about what the Government regard as the best course of action to ensure that those in rural and isolated areas, or those who cannot prove the nature of an attack, are not treated as second-class citizens.

David Hanson: I thank the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) for tabling his new clause.
	I start by utterly condemning any attacks or vandalism on Orange or Hibernian halls, or any other buildings used for meetings. Whether they are attacked as a matter of general vandalism or subject to an attack of a sectarian nature, that is unacceptable in a civilised society. I would urge, as would the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), that any individuals who had information about such attacks should take it to the police, who may be able to undertake prosecution. Those who carry out such attacks should face the full force of the lawthat is self-evident in a civilised society.
	Let me say to the hon. Member for Belfast, North in particular that the current criminal damage legislation is an important means of supporting individuals and groups who have suffered material loss over the period of conflict in Northern Ireland. Now that we are moving, I hope, to a more normal society, such attacks, particularly the sectarian ones, should be reduced. That will in due course have obvious implications for current criminal damage arrangements generally.
	The Criminal Damage (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 is particular to Northern Ireland. As we all know, that is because of the particular problems faced by Northern Ireland at that time. Such legislation does not exist in other parts of the United Kingdom. I want to reflect on the future of such compensation schemes, particularly in the context of a changing Northern Ireland and the Government's national approach to compensation. Of course, I recognise the great hurt and pain that can be caused, be it by a small act of vandalism causing a broken window or something much more serious in the shape of an arson attack on an entire building. The Police Service of Northern Ireland takes such criminal acts very seriously and will use the full weight of the law to prosecute the perpetrators.
	Before turning to the new clause, I will respond to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), who asked me about the nature and number of such attacks. I recently answered a parliamentary questionif it was not me, it was my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for securitywhich indicated that police figures show that over the past 15 years, attacks on Orange halls in particular have varied significantly. In 1997, therewere 41 attacks; in 2004, there were six attacks; and the provisional figure for 2005 was higher than that for 2004. That information gives no specifics on the nature of the attackit could be a broken window or a full arson attack on a building.
	The new clause seeks to change article 4 of the Criminal Damage (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, which was drafted to meet specific conditions relating to agricultural property, particularly the absence of a Chief Constable's certificate where the damage was caused by those acting on behalf of an illegal organisation, or the evidence of the involvement of three or more persons.
	Claims for non-agricultural properties are covered under article 5 of the Criminal Damage (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 and, where its conditions are satisfied, claimants can obtain compensation for damage to such property. A Chief Constable's certificate, or proof of the involvement of three or more persons or of an illegal organisation, are generally required as proof of liability in respect of claims for compensation. Where there is evidence of damage caused by civil disorder, for example, Orange halls can make claims under the provisions of the order. When claims are not met under compensation arrangements, they should fall under commercial insurance arrangements in the normal way. We are dealing here with the question of whether we should give compensation to Orange halls on a par with that given to agricultural buildings when there is no Chief Constable's certificate and no evidence of the involvement of three or more persons.
	The effect of the new clause would be to extend the category of properties falling under article 4, which was not intended for that purpose. The Government believe that, when a property is damaged and when there is no Chief Constable's certificate and no evidence of the involvement of three or more personswhen the circumstances do not meet the evidential requirement of the legislation covering criminal damage compensationthe normal route for seeking compensation, in Northern Ireland as in other parts of the United Kingdom, is through general property insurance.
	I recognise that there can be difficulties in obtaining insurance, and I have discussed this issue with the hon. Member for Belfast, North. The Orange Order is a powerful organisation in the fabric of Northern Ireland, however, and it represents an awful lot of individuals and organisations. I would hope that it could use its power to raise these issues with the insurance companies.
	I know that it will disappoint the hon. Gentleman that I am unable to accept his new clause today. The provisions relating to the specific circumstances of agricultural properties were made in 1977. There is an anomaly involved, as that is the only area that is covered. However, there is compensation available for circumstances involving collective discontent and disorder, and compensation can also be obtained with a Chief Constable's certificate or with evidence of the involvement of three or more people. I am unable to accept the new clause for those reasons.

Lady Hermon: If the Minister is not prepared to accept the new clause, will he consider an alternative that would make things easier for organisations such as the Ancient Order of Hibernians and, particularly, the Orange Order, which bears the brunt of these problems? Could not the Northern Ireland Office pay for CCTV cameras to be installed at the premises of such organisations, in order that they might gather the evidence themselves under the present scheme? Will the Minister agree to that?

David Hanson: The hon. Lady will know that I have recently announced additional resources for CCTV cameras, and a competition for individual organisations to bid for such cameras. That is possible for any organisation to do, subject to their demonstrating that the cameras would be of benefit in the prevention of crime. In principle, there is nothing to preclude an organisation from bidding for CCTV cameras to cover Orange halls. I cannot, and nor would I wish to, fund CCTV cameras at every Orange hall site, because that would be an impractical way of implementing Government policy. However, in principle, there is nothing wrong with applications being made to that effect.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, North mentioned the significant investment of 33 million in areas of deprivation, and we have also undertaken the derating of Orange halls, which has released significant resources to the organisation. I know that he and his party welcomed that move, having pressed for it. The Government supported that change, and considered it a positive move forward in releasing those resources to the Orange halls. I know that he will be disappointed that I cannot accept his new clause today, but I cannot. I have explained the reasons for my decision, and I hope that he will withdraw it on that basis.

Nigel Dodds: I have listened to the Minister's comments and I am disappointed that he does not feel able to accept the new clause or to take on board the suggestion made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) that he might at least provide such halls with the opportunity to try to claim compensationas many of them do not have insuranceby gathering evidence from CCTV.

David Hanson: I emphasise again that if the Chief Constable offers certification to the effect that the damage was caused by disorder or other associated means, and if three or more people were involved, criminal compensation can be claimed. The problem only exists if fewer people were involved.

Nigel Dodds: I understand that that is the legal position, which is precisely the problem. That is why we have tabled the new clause. While we understand that three or more people must be involved in an attack for compensation to be payable, the difficulty is proving that three or more people were involved. We are talking about buildings that have clearly been destroyed for sectarian reasons and as part of a wider campaign, as has been happening for decades in Northern Ireland. It was for precisely that reason that the Government introduced an exception for agricultural premises in section 4 of the 1997 order, to which the Minister referred. That accepted that, for certain types of premises, it would be difficult to provide proof.
	My party's suggestion is that the same criteria should apply in relation to hallsprimarily Orange halls, but also to nationalist halls such as the Ancient Order of Hibernians and othersso that they are not crippled in that way and that local communities are not deprived of an extremely valuable resource, in many cases for years and sometimes for ever. All hon. Members recognise the valuable and important role that such parish halls play in our communities up and down the land, day in and day out.

Lembit �pik: In that context, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister's position seems to step against normalisation, as he has created a double standard in relation to the burden of proof in some circumstances? I cannot see why the Minister is making such heavy weather of accepting a fairly common-sense proposal that provides proper and sensible protection in a way that cannot realistically be abused.

Nigel Dodds: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I hope that his additional words, even at this late stage, will cause the Minister to think again. This short debate has illustrated a fairly strong consensus on the issue. Most people see the proposal as fairly modest.It is in line with Government policy, the recent announcement of a package of measures and the recent announcement on derating. It accepts that there are anomalies for certain types of premises. The proposal simply ensures that local communities will not be deprived.
	Finally, the Minister asked whether the owners of such halls, and the Orange Order in particular, could go to the insurers and talk to them. No doubt the Minister will be awaresome of his colleagues should be, as the Orange Order has made this clear to Ministers in talksthat this matter has been the subject of years of discussion and negotiation with insurers. The trouble is that those discussions are not getting anywhere. As a result, halls up and down the land either cannot get insurance any more or any insurance that is available to them is so exorbitant that it simply cannot be obtained.
	For those reasons, and in view of the expressions of support in the House, I shall press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	 The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 271.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4
	  
	Anonymous Registration: Northern Ireland

'After section 9 of the 1983 Act insert
	9A Anonymous registration: Northern Ireland
	(1) This section applies if an application for registration in a register of parliamentary electors of local government electors is made in accordance with the requirements for the purposes of section 10A(1)(a) below and is accompanied by
	(a) an application under this section made in accordance with prescribed requirements (an application for an anonymous entry),
	(b) a declaration made in accordance with such requirements for the purposes of this section, and
	(c) such evidence in support of the application for anonymous registration as may be prescribed.
	(2) If the registration officer determines that the person is entitled to be registered, he must also determine whether the safety test is satisfied.
	(3) If the registration officer determines that the safety test is satisfied
	(a) section 9(2) does not apply in relation to the person; and
	(b) the person's entry in the register shall instead contain letters in the prescribed form and his electoral number.
	(4) An entry containing the matters mentioned in subsection (3)(b) above is referred to in this Act as an anonymous entry.
	(5) If an anonymous entry is made in respect of a person, the registration officer shall remove any other entry in the register for that person.
	(6) If the registration officer does not determine that the safety test is satisfied, no entry is to be made in respect of him in the register (whether an anonymous entry or otherwise).
	(7) Subsection (6) above does not affect
	(a) any other entry in the register for the person;
	(b) the determination of any further application for registration which is made by the person (including an application which is treated as having been made by him by virtue of section 10A(2) below).
	(8) Any communication sent by a registration officer or the returning officer for any election to a person who has an anonymous entry (A) must be sent in an envelope or other form of covering so as not to disclose to any other person that A has an anonymous entry.
	(9) The safety test is satisfied if the safety of the applicant for an anonymous entry or that of any other person of the same household would be at risk if the register contains the name of the applicant or his qualifying address.
	(10) In this section, determines means determines in accordance with regulation.
	9B Removal of anonymous entry: Northern Ireland
	(1) If a person has an anonymous entry in a register, his entitlement to remain in pursuance of the application for registration mentioned in section 9A(1) terminates
	(a) at the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the date when the entry in the register first takes effect, or
	(b) if the declaration made for the purposes of section 9A is at the time when the declaration is cancelled.
	(2) Subsection (1) above does not affect the application of any other provision of this Act or of the Representation of the People Act 1985 which has the effect that the person's entitlement to registration terminates before the expiry of the 12 month period mentioned in subsection (1) or before the cancellation of the declaration made for the purposes of section 9A.
	(3) If a person's entitlement to remain registered terminates by virtue of subsection (1) above, the registration officer concerned shall remove his entry from the register, unless he is entitled to remain registered with an anonymous entry in pursuance of a further application for registration accompanied by a further application under section 9A..'. [Mr. Alan Reid.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Alan Reid: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 17, in clause 3, page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (b) and insert
	'(b) the year 2015;
	(c) every tenth year following 2015;'.
	No. 18, in page 3, line 2, leave out '2010' andinsert '2015'.
	No. 19, in page 3, line 3, leave out '2010' andinsert '2015'.
	No. 20, in page 3, line 4, leave out paragraph (c).

Alan Reid: New clause 4 replicates the provisions of section 10 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006, which introduces anonymous registration provisions in Great Britain but does not extend to Northern Ireland. However, the principal justifications for anonymous registration in Great Britain apply equally well in Northern Ireland.
	In Great Britain, people who fear that their security, or that of their families, will be put at risk if their names appear on the register are allowed to apply to register anonymously. Given that the principles behind anonymous registration were debated at length in Committee, where there was widespread support for introducing it in Northern Ireland, I shall not repeat all the arguments today.
	We have tabled the new clause to elicit from the Minister an explanation of why the Government treat Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the UK. The Government do not intend to use the Bill to introduce anonymous registration in Northern Ireland, but instead will do so means of an Order in Council. As a result, people there will not be able to take advantage of anonymous registration until much later than their counterparts in Great Britain. I hope that the Minister will answer a few questions about that.
	Will there be a consultation in Northern Ireland before the Government introduce the secondary legislation here? Secondary legislation cannot be debated and amended by this House, so consultation is even more important than with primary legislation.
	Do the Government have a proposed timetable for implementation of the provision? When do they intend to bring the Order in Council before the House? Will it be in place before the annual canvass planned for next year? That is important because, if it is not in place then, people who might want to register anonymously will be forced to make a choice. If they decide not to register, they will give up their right to vote, but if they remain fully on the register, they could put themselves or their families at risk. The next canvass is not due until 2010, but it could be as late as 2016 if the Secretary of State uses his power of veto.

Lembit �pik: The Minister is likely to stand up and give the reasons why the Government are not willing to accept this common sense proposal, and we have just had a vote on a matter in which he showed no interest at all. He did not take the DUP's amendment at all seriously, but does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister would do a lot better if he showed some sympathy and empathy for what is being proposed?

Alan Reid: I agree wholeheartedly. The Minister showed little sympathy for the earlier amendment. I hope that he will do better this time and at least answer my questions properly. People's right to vote is a key element of a democratic society, but they are also entitled to exercise that right in complete security and in a way that does not put at risk their lives, or the lives of their families.
	The right to anonymous registration has been introduced in the rest of the UK. I do not see why it should not be introduced in Northern Ireland, especially given the all-party support that the proposal received in Committee. I look forward to hearing the Minister answer my questions.

Laurence Robertson: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 17 to 20, aspects of which we discussed at earlier stages.
	Accuracy of the register is extremely important. We expressed concerns about the abolition of the annual canvass in previous debates; today, we are discussing the same thing in a different way. We were concerned about the Secretary of State's ability to override the chief electoral officer and, indeed, the legislation. We are now looking at the matter slightly differently. Our amendments would ensure that a canvass took place in 2015 and every 10 years thereafter, so that even if one canvass was delayed, others would be carried out in those years.
	We were a little concerned about the abolition of the annual canvass, but having discussed it with the former CEO, we understood some of the reasons. He felt that it would be better if he could deploy his resources on encouraging people to register rather than carrying out an annual canvass. I can appreciate both sides of the argument, but I am concerned that the Secretary of State could say that a canvass should never be carried out. It is important to hold a canvass every so often, as people move or slip through the net.
	I commend our amendments; they are innocuous and I am sure that the Government will see them in that way. I look forward to the Minister's response.

David Hanson: I appreciate the way in which the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) and for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) made their proposals.
	The Government and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute have a common interest. It is our intention broadly to mirror the provisions on anonymous registration, for the reasons that we discussed in the Committee of the whole House some weeks ago. Anonymous registration is vital to protect individuals who feel threatened and we agree with it. The question is how to do it.
	The new clause would replicate the provisions of the Electoral Administration Bill, and the reason I cannot accept the new clause is not that we are not on the same wavelength in respect of anonymous registration but because there are differences in the operation of electoral law in Northern Ireland. There are registration conditions and anti-fraud measures that do not apply to the rest of the United Kingdom, including, for example, proof of identity requirements at the polling station that are not necessary in Great Britain and which make anonymity more difficult to maintain. There is a range of reasons.
	We shall introduce an Order in Council to give effect to the same principle that the hon. Gentleman wants to achieve, but in a Northern Ireland context. The proposals will be introduced later so that we can consider their implications for Northern Ireland, but the principle is exactly the same. I want anonymous registration in due course and we shall introduce the order after the consultation process. We hope that that will not be long after the scheme is introduced in Great Britain and that any difference in time scale will be a matter of only a few months. I hope that it will be only a few weeks, and that we can introduce the order quickly.
	I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman does not support the whole idea of Orders in Council. I realise that they are not amendable and that that gives rise to difficulties, but on this occasion there are real reasons, which I have outlined, for an Order in Council. I do not expect that he will disagree with the content of the order because it will achieve his objectives, but in a Northern Ireland context.
	I turn to the points made by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). If he looks at clause 3, as I know that he has done, he will see that the Government's clear intention is that there will be a canvass in 2010. The key point of his amendments is that, if the chief electoral officer believes that the canvass in 2010 is not necessary for him to meet the registration objectives that we have also set out in the legislationfor example, if he feels that a canvass would not improve the comprehensiveness or accuracyand he believes that, for his own purposes, that the cost of that canvass is not justified, he can recommend to the Secretary of State that the 2010 canvass be cancelled.
	Only if such a recommendation is made can the Secretary of State make an order to remove the requirement for a canvass to held in 2010. The Secretary of State cannot unilaterally cancel the canvass in 2010; he can only do so if the chief electoral officer makes a recommendation to that effect because the chief electoral officer, not the Secretary of State, believes that the canvass should be cancelled. Even if that were the case and the Secretary of State accepted the chief electoral officer's recommendation, it would be subject to approval by both the House and another place.
	Canvasses are very resource-intensive in terms of both labour and money. It is only right that the chief electoral officer has the power to determine how his resources will be best deployed in determining whether or not a canvass is necessary in 2010. Indeed, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury will know that 2010 is only four years after the final annual canvass, which will take place very shortly. I hope that, with the assurance that the Secretary of State has a power only to accept a recommendation, the hon. Gentleman will not press any of his amendments and that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute will withdraw the motion.

Alan Reid: I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the Government are committed to the principle of introducing anonymous registration to Northern Ireland, that there would be a consultation process and that the legislation would come into effect either onlya few weeks or, at most, a few months after the legislation for the rest of the United Kingdom. I was pleased about those assurances, in view of which I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6
	  
	Appointment of visitor for a child who is not being visited

'For Article 31(1) of the Children (Northern Ireland) OrderSI No.755 (N.I. 2) substitute:
	(1) Where it appears to an authority in relation to any child whom the authority is accommodating under Article 21 for a continuous period of more than 3 months that it would be in the child's best interests for an independent person to be appointed to be his visitor for the purposes of this Article, the authority shall appoint such a visitor.
	(1A) In ascertaining the child's best interest under 31(1) the authority must take into account the child's age and understanding about the appointment of an independent visitor subject to subsection (5)..'. [Lady Hermon.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Lady Hermon: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) to his new responsibilities in the Northern Ireland Office and pay tribute to his predecessor, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith), who worked extremely hard and was very well liked in Northern Ireland. We wish her well, and we also wish his other colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member forSt. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), well in his new post. The new Minister is most welcome to Northern Ireland. I hope that he enjoys it, is extremely successful and delivers all that I request, including accepting the new clause.
	Since this is the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, I have an opportunity to introduce, under the heading of miscellaneous, a very important issue that has come to my attention for a certain reason in North Down. The new clause would amend the current wording of article 31 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. If no next of kin or other family member has visited a child in care within 12 months, the relevant authority should certainly appoint an independent visitor to see to the needs and request of the young person who is in care.
	I understand that the system of independent visitors has worked extremely well in Wales, but the practice has been very patchy in Northern Ireland, where some trusts appoint independent visitors, while others choose not to do so or leave doing so until the eleventh hour. The new clause would ensure that, if there had not been a visit to a child in care in a much shorter period of timethree monthsan independent visitor would, of necessity, be appointed.
	The matter came to my attention in my constituency for a very particular reason. The whole of Northern Ireland is serviced by one juvenile justice centre, which was opened recently. I pay tribute tosadlythe late Martin Mogg, who led the way in many ways. He was very progressive in his thinking about modernising juvenile justice in Northern Ireland and I had the great good fortune of being first shown around the juvenile justice centre on the Rathgael road in Bangor by him. I knew at the time that he was ill, but I did not realise just how ill. I am sure that other hon. Members who knew him will wish to join me in paying tribute to his efforts to modernise juvenile justice in Northern Ireland.
	I first visited the juvenile justice centre on Good Friday 2004. We are talking about young people who, allegedly, have committed serious offences in Northern Ireland, but who are juveniles. During the course of conversations with some of those young peopleparticularly the young women, who were being taught for the first time to iron clothes and the young men who were being taught how to make scrambled egg, if I remember correctly, and were delighted to have been given skills to cook, wash, iron and look after themselvesmany of them expressed reservations about returning to their communities.
	Those young peopleparticularly the young womenalso gave me a clear impression of how they felt let down by the care system in Northern Ireland. That has remained with me in my conscience for two years. As I say, we have a vehicle to change things and to try to improve the care system in Northern Ireland for young people. It seems a terribly sad fact of life that young people who have gone into careparticularly young womenhave ended up in the juvenile justice centre. We have let them down badly somewhere along the line.
	I have not drafted the new clause with particular care, but I want to put it on the record that we definitely need a care system that is much more flexible in terms of independent visitors or advocates for young people who go into care for whatever reasonand there are always a variety of reasons. I do not wish those young people to end up in the juvenile justice centre. If the Minister cannot accept the wording of the new clause, I hope that he will give a clear commitment that the issue will be looked at seriously and promptly by the Northern Ireland Office and those who are responsible for juvenile justice in Northern Ireland..

Alasdair McDonnell: I welcome the opportunity to raise my concern about child welfare. There are many serious issues. Although I welcome the purpose and intent of my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) in proposing the new clause, I have some concerns. I would have preferred the new clause to have been additional to the current legislation, rather than something to be used instead of it. As I understand itI am subject to correction if I am wrongarticle 31(1) of the children order allows independent visitors to be appointed only for children who are in care. Children in care are defined by articles 25(1) and 27(2) as children under care orders. That means that independent visitors cannot be appointed for other children who are very much in need, but who are not fully in care or fully under care orders. Such children may nevertheless need and seek considerable assistance with finding a place to live. They are generally teenage children who are in transition to independent living, but not always. They are known as article 21 children. There is a serious defect because these children are very much in need of support. They are in a halfway house, or no-man's land, between care and independent living. The new clause would certainly go a long way towards addressing the problem.
	The new clause would delete article 31(1) and substitute the new wording, but that would create a new problem, because article 31(1) is essential for the protection of children in care. In fact, we need both provisions. We need visitors to be appointed to children in care, but I would claim that we also need visitors appointed to the many children who are not quite in care or under care orders, but at the boundaries. Such children need support as they move from being in care to independent living.

Iris Robinson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the system fails badly to follow up how those young people are doing after they get out into the community? They are very vulnerable.

Alasdair McDonnell: I thank the hon. Lady because I am making exactly the point that there is a transition phase. The follow-up is poor and, in many cases, weak. We have many problems in Northern Ireland with inadequate child care. The inadequacy is often driven by underfunding, which is being compounded at the moment by cuts at the education board level. I do not like to bring this matter to the feet of our new Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), immediately, because I would like to give him the opportunity to get to grips with the situation, but there is a serious problem. I welcome the new clause, but I would have preferred the new provision to be additional to article 31(1)perhaps that is not possible at this stagebecause we need to hold on to the existing article. I am in a dilemma about that, so I would like to hear his comments. We need to retain the old provision as well as adding the wording in the new clause.

Patrick Cormack: I support the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), who moved new clause 6, and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell), both of whom have a much more detailed knowledge of such matters than I. However, I know from representations that I have received and conversations that I have had in Belfast and elsewhere that there is considerable concern about the inadequacy of child care and supervision in the Province. The hon. Member for Strangford(Mrs. Robinson) outlined that in her intervention, too.
	I, too, welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), to his new post. I am sure that his background will give him a real insight into the problems and sympathy with the situation. In his previous incarnation, he had a degree of responsibility for some of the most difficult young people in the United Kingdom, and I met him when he was acting in that capacity on at least one occasion. These young people need not soft treatment, but care and concern. No matter what offences they may have committed, they must have the chance of rehabilitation and hope, and I think that that is what the hon. Member for North Down is trying to achieve.
	The hon. Lady indicated that the drafting of the new clause might not be absolutely acceptable at the moment, but she has put down a marker. I hope that the Minister will reply by indicating his concern and willingness to examine the situation. The care of young people in Northern Ireland is a matter that the Select Committee might want to address in a future inquiry because there is concern about it throughout the Province. With those few words of general support for the principle of the amendment, I hope that we will hear a positive response from the Dispatch Box.

David Simpson: I support the idea of having a visitor for young people. I have been involved in youth work for more than 20 years, and I recognise some of what the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) referred to. I remember visiting an organisation in the city of Belfast which dealt with young people from 11 up to 16. I visited one small apartment of a young lady of 15 years of age. She had a young baby in the corner in one of the prams. I was informed that that was her second child. Some of the young people had been used on the streets of Belfast by paramilitary organisations and some of them had got pregnant.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford(Mrs. Robinson) mentioned follow-up visits, which are important. Through that organisation, the young people were learning how to take care of basic domestic tasks, from ironing clothes through to handling money, including learning about computers so that they could keep basic accounts. Those were tremendous achievements, but the young people needed to be visited. Many of them had gone through traumatic times, not only because they were used on the streets, but because they were abused in homes by family members. We need to push for such support. Will the Minister give the new clause serious consideration and see whether there is something that he can do?

DEFERRED DIVISION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am now to announce the result of a Division deferred on the question of a Joint Committee on Conventions.
	On the motion on the Joint Committee on Conventions, the Ayes were 416, the Noes were 19, so the motion was agreed to.
	 [The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Sammy Wilson: I have no hesitation in supporting the new clause. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has identified an important problem. Youngsters who are taken into care in Northern Ireland face many disadvantages, which hon. Members mentioned, both when they leave care and when they are in it. Not least, they face disadvantages in getting an education.
	Many youngsters have come from backgrounds in which their families have been disrupted and their lives have been in turmoil in their early years. They come into care with considerable educational disadvantages because they have not attended school regularlyperhaps because they have not been encouraged to attend, because they are persistent truants, or because they come from dysfunctional families. A recent ministerial response to me said that about 90 per cent. of such youngsters leave school without the basic qualifications that one would expect from schools in Northern Ireland.
	I understand that the role of the visitor is to befriend youngsters and to act as an advocate on their behalf. I am not clear whether that would extend to the visitor acting as someone who can take up the problems that the youngster may have with school and act as an intermediary, or whether their role would be to identify some of the problems that the youngster faces with education, and then persuade someone else to intervene. The one thing I know is that we can no longer tolerate a situation in which so many youngsters, who already have an accumulation of disadvantages, are put out into the wide world at 17 with little or no support and without the basic educational skills that will enable them to get some stability back into their lives. If the new clause helps at least to move us in that direction, in all social conscience, we must accept it and progress in that direction.

Paul Goggins: I thank the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) for her warm welcome and hon. Members on both sides of the House for the welcome they have offered to me in this debate and elsewhere in the past few days. In a gentle way this afternoon, the hon. Lady finally got her revenge. As a Home Office Minister for the past three years, I have taken a range of criminal justice legislation through the House. On the Floor of the House and in Committee, I have engaged in discussions with her on a range of issues. She often said, If this is good enough for England and Wales, why is it not good enough for Northern Ireland?, to which I always replied sympathetically that that was a matter for Northern Ireland Ministers. Well, here we are.
	The hon. Lady raises an important issue. The intention behind the new clause, which is clearly thoughtful and caring, is shared by hon. Members across the House. The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), alluded to my past. In the first 15 years of my working life, I worked with children as well as troubled children in care. I hope that some of what I learned then will inform my new responsibilities in Northern Ireland.
	There is a debate about whether the responsibility placed on the trust to appoint an independent visitor should begin after three months or 12 months. Some may regard three months as too early, some may regard 12 months as too late. There is genuine discussion and reflection to be had. There is, howeverI think that the hon. Lady recognised thisa technical difficulty with the new clause to which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) alluded. The provisions on independent visitors apply to all children, whether they are in voluntary accommodation or the subject of a care order. The inclusion of a reference to article 21 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 would mean that the facility to appoint independent visitors applied only in relation to children in voluntary care. It would take away any requirement to appoint independent visitors for children who were the subject of care orders. That presents us with a difficulty.
	I feel stronglyI sense from the discussion that right hon. and hon. Members agreethat there is a need to ensure that children in care in Northern Ireland have a stronger voice within the various discussions that we have. I was pleased on Sunday to host a fun day in the grounds of Hillsborough castle for the fostering network and to meet representatives of Voices of Young People in Care, who said some interesting things to me. They carried out some research as recently as last year that highlighted a number of the issues facing young people in care in Northern Ireland. They want more contact, where it is possible, with their familyand friends. They want to have greater input in the decisions that affect them, as well as to highlight some of their difficulties in learning to trust and to engage with new people.
	I was pleased, therefore, in coming to this new role, to find that the children and young people funding package that was launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in March contains an additional 660,000 to provide an independent advocacy and peer mentoring service for children in care across Northern Ireland. That package and the resource it brings will help us, along with other measures, to promote greater stability and continuity of care placements, which are so important.

Iris Robinson: May I flag up an issue that is close to my heart? A lot of young vulnerable people in care homes are self-harmers. When they are released back into the community, they sometimes, sadly, become suicide statistics. We must look at the whole question around mental health provision. We must allow more money to be spent on those young adolescents who suffer mental illness following whatever traumas they have suffered throughout their young lives.

Paul Goggins: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the issue. In my first few days in post, I have seen submissions, reports and correspondence on suicide and self-harm. I hope to build on the work of my predecessor and address the problem for children in care and more widely, because suicide and self-harm rates in Northern Ireland are worryingly high. I look forward to discussing that concern with her in future.
	The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made an important point about the need for better educational outcomes for looked-after children. I hope that the packages that we are developing will help young people in care to have a greater say in the decisions that affect their lives and future. I intend shortly to consult on proposals to place the independent advocacy service on a statutory footing, which is a significant step forward, and I look forward to hon. Members' contributions and observations. It is important that the new service complements, and does not obstruct, other provisions for independent visitors and the personal advisers appointed when children leave care. I agree that it is important to follow throughwe should not abandon children when they leave care.

Patrick Cormack: In view of the widespread concern among Members on both sides of the House, will the hon. Gentleman give evidence on his new package of measures to the Select Committee so that we can look at them?

Paul Goggins: Who could resist such an invitation? I should be delighted to explain the package at an appropriate time. I repeat that it must be developed in consultation and discussion with professionals, children who have been in the care system, and hon. Members. In urging the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) to withdraw the motion, I pledge to make sure that she and other hon. Members are included in the consultation so that the solution commands broad consensus and will be of genuine benefit to looked-after children in Northern Ireland.

William McCrea: Will the Minister confirm that his Department is already dealing with those issues and that its proposals will be introduced shortly? There is grave concern in the community that the problem should not be left to the long term, as we need active solutions on the ground.

Paul Goggins: I hesitate so early in my new post to give a specific time scale. Work is under way, and there is a 6 million package to promote fostering in Northern Ireland, which could transform the fostering network, recruit more foster carers, and give them better training and support. A series of measures will be introduced, and our debate has confirmed my view that the matter is urgent. We have a debt and obligation to looked-after children, and we must all fulfil it. In response to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire and other hon. Members, I will introduce proposals on a wider package as soon as possible.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for a typically thoughtful and full reply. I am glad that the traits that he demonstrated in his previous incarnation at the Home Office have been carried over to the Northern Ireland Office.
	I welcome the announcement of increased advocacy arrangements for young people in care. In light of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson), who speaks on health matters for the Democratic Unionist party, it would be helpful if they volunteered to join Colin Reidthe National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children policy adviser who has helped to advance a wide range of children's issues on behalf of the charityand myself in an early cross-party meeting with the Minister and his officials before his grilling by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

Paul Goggins: I confirm to the hon. Lady that I would be more than happy to do that, on a cross-party basis and with the advice of the voluntary sector, as she suggests.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful for that assurance and commitment given so early on by the Minister. With the consent, I am sure, of the hon. Member for Strangford and certainly that of the hon. Member for Belfast, South, may I say that we look forward to meeting the Minister very soon. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 7
	  
	Amendments to section 30 of the 1998 act

'(1) Section 30 of the 1988 Act (exclusion of Ministers from office) is amended as follows.
	(2) After paragraph (1)(b) insert
	(c) because he is no longer committed to upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland.
	(3) After paragraph (2)(b) insert
	(c) because it is no longer committed to upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland.
	(4) After paragraph (7)(d) insert
	(e) is committed now and in the future to upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland.'. [Mr. Laurence Robertson.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Laurence Robertson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 8 Amendment to section 30 of the 1988 Act
	'In Section 18 of the 1998 Act after subsection (8) insert
	(8A) A Northern Ireland Minister shall not take up office until he has made a declaration before the Assembly pledging to uphold the rule of law..'.

Laurence Robertson: I add my welcome to the Minister. I hope he finds his time in the Northern Ireland Office fulfilling. I know that he will find it challenging and interesting. I look forward to working with him.
	New clauses 7 and 8 revisit topics that we discussed in a slightly different context during earlier stages of the Bill. They refer to the requirement that Ministers in office uphold the rule of law, and that before they are appointed to office, they make a declaration before the Assembly pledging to uphold the rule of law. The new clauses add to sections 30 and 18 of the 1998 Act and the pledge of office.
	On earlier amendments we debated support for the rule of law and for the police, so I do not intend to speak for too long, but as I did not take part in that debate, I hope I shall be allowed a few minutes to express my opinions. As has been said by various Members, we cannot allow a situation in Northern Ireland where Ministers are in control of the police, yet do not support the police. We cannot accept that situation or move towards it.
	Last week I visited south Armagh. The people there, the Army and the police were clear that the situation had improved immeasurably, and I accept that it has. However, it may be useful to the House, especially to Members who may not visit Northern Ireland regularly, if I describe the situation there. The Army still accompanies the police when they go around south Armagh, particularly in Crossmaglen. The police are often refused service in shops. They are concerned about what will happen as the Army pulls out of the area. Criminality is continuing and, in the words of the people in the area, there is a long, long way to go before normality is reached.
	Given that background, it is reasonable that we should ask any Minister who has the potential to be in control of the police, and of the other offices of Northern Ireland as well, to make a declaration before the Assembly pledging to uphold the rule of law. I do not see that there can be any objection to that requirement, other than one: there may be a partySinn Feinthat would object to that requirement. If we allow that party to get in the way of writing the requirement into the Bill, what does that say about the entire process?
	We feel strongly about new clauses 7 and 8. Yes, there is a requirement in the Bill to pursue non-violent and democratic means, but the Bill, like the 1998 Act, should require the additional declaration before the Assembly pledging to uphold the rule of law. If that were the requirement, the constitutional and legitimate parties in Northern Ireland would find it much easier to move towards the full restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Mark Durkan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be extremely helpful to the Chair if the hon. Gentleman were to make a positive indication of wishing to contribute, because he might have lost his place.

Mark Durkan: New clauses 7 and 8 are better than the provisions that we examined in Committee, but we are still concerned on a couple of counts. On the new grounds for exclusion, the question whether people are committed to upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Earlier today, I mentioned the attitude of parties to the Parades Commission's rulings, to the performance of the police in enforcing such rulings and to the ensuing violence in the case of Whiterock. It is possible to question many parties other than Sinn Fein about their attitude to upholding the rule of law.
	We now face the additional problem created by the step too far by the leader of the Ulster Unionist party in incorporating the leader of the political wing of the Ulster Volunteer Force into the UUP Assemblygroup. I assume that the Independent Monitoring Commission's examination of the activities of political parties in the Assembly would centre on the rights and roles in the Assembly of the new UUP Assembly group rather than distinctively or specifically the Progressive Unionist party, because the IMC has powers, which have not yet been activated, on the conduct and rights of parties in the Assembly. That is an additional complication, and, because we are all coming to terms with it and hoping that other people might resolve it for us, it would be dangerous to accept new clause 7.
	New clause 8 proposes an addition to the pledge of office. As I have said, the SDLP is happy to consider in the context of a proper review of the agreement altering the pledge of office to include commitments on the rule of law or, indeed, the Police Service of Northern Ireland. In that context, new commitments could be made to people who participate in all the institutions or who exercise responsibility in all of the institutions. I originally drafted the pledge of office when we negotiated the agreement, and I was careful not to build in a commitment to all the institutions, because that would be unfair to Ministers who oppose the agreementpeople should not have to sign up to the agreement to take office. Equally, we did not build in specific commitments at that stage in relation to policing and the rule of law. If the circumstances have changed, we could consider that matter, but it should be done in the context of a review agreed by the parties rather than by the House acting at its own behest.

Lembit �pik: I find it hard to disagree with new clauses 7 and 8, but they are slightly meaningless. That is not because the hon. Member for Tewkesbury(Mr. Robertson) lacks meaninghe has made a profound and ongoing contribution to the peace processbut because, to put it bluntly, Britain's prisons are full of people who are innocent and who are willing to pledge to tell the truth and to uphold the rule of law. When I consider the recent history of Northern Ireland, I am not sure what we would achieve by including that additional pledge. If we listen to the testimony from various individuals in Northern Ireland, nobody robbed the Northern bank. Even if by some miracle the hon. Member for Tewkesbury succeeds, against all previous evidence, in convincing the Minister to listen, to be persuaded, to do some joined-up government and to accept the new clause, I still suspect that individuals may occasionally be economical with the truth.

David Hanson: Before the hon. Gentleman gets into the habit of saying that the Minister does not listen, will he consider the fact that I have tabled at least two amendments that reflect discussions that took place during previous debates in this House?

Lembit �pik: I credit the Minister for showing signs of listening. He is doing quite well. As a general progress report, it is good to see that he is beginning to make up for nine years of parliamentary deafness by some of his colleagues, although there is some way to go yet. In parenthesis, I would say to him that the Liberal Democrats were provoked into supporting the new clause tabled by the DUP because he showed no willingness to show any empathy with a point that seemed utterly reasonable and which hon. Members made with sincerity. I do not want to have a go at the MinisterI think that he is a very nice man. I will be in his constituency in a few days' time, and I do not want him to be annoyed with me. [ Interruption.] I shall let him know, but it is not perhaps terribly relevant to what we are discussing now.
	If the hon. Member for Tewkesbury insists on pressing the new clause, I will have to vote for it in the same way that one would vote for motherhood and apple pie. I have issued a reality check about the likelihood of its making a difference. Hope springs eternal, but I think that it will take more than another pledge to bring things together in Northern Ireland.

Patrick Cormack: It is good to have a Liberal Democrat who would be prepared to vote for motherhood and apple pie.
	I rise briefly to support most strongly the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). I will not repeat what I said earlier this afternoon, the House will be relieved to hear, but I do believe very strongly that it is crucial that those who take a place in the Executivelet us hope that one can be formedare utterly and publicly committed to upholding the rule of law.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury referred to his visit to south Armagh. I was privileged to take the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee there last week, and everything that he says is absolutely true. Yes, there has been significant advancenobody denies thatbut one still has to travel in an armoured helicopter or an armoured vehicle, and in a convoy. We heard some pretty horrific tales of people being set upon and beaten up. We also heard tales of extraordinary courageof young police officers who, despite suffering the most dreadful injuries, still returned to their posts wanting to serve in south Armagh because they do so love the countryside and the people. We are dealing with a very small number of evil people and a very large number of decent ones. It is crucial that there should be public and proclaimed commitment to the rule of law. That is all that my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury is seeking to achieve.
	I make one other point because my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who has himself taken a considerable interest in these matters over the years, has just come into the Chamber. When he and I entered this House in June 1970, almost 36 years ago, the Province was represented for the most part by Ulster Unionist party Members, who sat with us on what was in those days the Government side of the House and received the Whip. I might say that the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) entered on the same day and sat in the same place.
	I was deeply concerned earlier this week when I learned of the extraordinary arrangement between the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Unionist party. I can well understand the misgivings that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) was courageous enough to proclaim in the House this afternoon. Let us hope that I am proved wrong, and that there is more to it than the official reason that was given immediately afterwards. Let us hope that what the hon. Lady heard last night turns out to be true. However, at the moment, it looks like a rather cynical manoeuvre, and it is one that I am deeply distressed about, having always had a profound respect for that party. It has had its ups and downs, but it has always been consistently and absolutely democratic and law abiding. To find it now put into the same category as Sinn Fein by the Secretary of State's statement today is very distressing. I think that that was very unfair on his part, but it is nevertheless distressing.
	The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has his misgivings. He said that he was unhappy about the new clauses, but he went on to say that he was happy about a pledge to uphold the rule of law. He referred to the events of earlier this week, and it is those events that underline the need for everyone who is to play a constructive part in the Northern Ireland Assembly, particularly those in the Executive who will govern the Province, to make a public proclamation of their dedication to upholding the rule of law. I hope that it will not be necessary to vote on the new clause, because I hope that we shall have a good response from the Minister, but if it is necessary to go into the Lobby, I shall certainly support my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury most strongly.

Sammy Wilson: The new clause is key to the likelihood of devolution being successfully implemented in Northern Ireland and to whatever devolved Government we set up being sustainable in the long run. It surprises me that there has already been resistance to it from the Government. Without a commitment by all those involved in the devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland, and in the Executive within it, to supporting the police and upholding the rule of law, we can be sure that it will not be long before a crisis hits the Assembly and it collapses again. We have already experienced that. The previous Assembly stumbled from one crisis to another, and it was quite clear why that was happening. Periodically, one of the parties involved in the Executive showed that it did not support the police not only through its words but through its activities. It is unthinkable that we could have a workable Executive in which there was no commitment to upholding the rule of law and supporting the police.
	My party and I share some of the reservations that have been expressed about the wording of the new clause. Of course it is possible for someone to take a pledge to uphold the rule of law and then totally disregard it, or say that their interpretation of it was different. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 required Ministers to be committed to exclusively peaceful means. The Sinn Fein Members signed up to that, while at the same time running a spy ring from their office. Members of their party were also engaged in gun running and, on a regular basis, extortion, criminality and murder were being carried out by the very people with whom they were associated.

Iris Robinson: I want to highlight the fact that there is no such thing as a good terrorist, whether they are members of the UVF or the IRA, or Muslim extremists. If they are terrorists, they are terrorists, and murder is murder. I also want to point out how far down the road Sinn Fein-IRA have gone within the ethnic minority communities. Last year, the Government gave 10,000 to a community group called WARN, which stands for the West Against Racism Network. I think that it is well named. It operates out of west Belfast, and had prepared a package for ethnic minorities coming into west Belfast. A leaflet that was part of the package said that the PSNI was an extension of the British state and had no support in west Belfast, so it would not be in the interest of any ethnic minority grouping to call the police for any reason at all.

Sammy Wilson: I thank my hon. Friend for her point, and I will deal with that issue later. She has highlighted an important part of what we mean by supporting the rule of law.
	Despite reservations that we might have about the effectiveness of any additional pledge, we support the new clause for two reasons. First, it is at least a step in the right direction. It counters the wrong signals sent out by the Government at present. Members have already referred to the Secretary of State giving evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee last Thursday, which was an interesting session. During it, I put a simple question to him. I asked him whether it was
	possible for an executive to be set up in Northern Ireland, with ministers from Sinn Fein, even though Sinn Fein had not at that stage given their support for policing.
	His answer was extremely disturbing. First, he said that he did not want to
	erect new hurdles to power sharing.
	He went on to state:
	I do not want to make this
	a commitment to supporting the police
	a pre-condition, and it will not be made a pre-condition, for the restoration of the institutions.
	What could be a clearer signal to those who not only do not support the police but, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) has pointed out, actively discourage people from having anything to do with the police, even to the point that they seek to poison the minds of people who come to Northern Ireland from outside to get them into their way of thinking? Leaflets have been given to those who have come to west Belfast warning them not to go to the police station, not to report crimes to the police and not to go to the police station unaccompanied. What kind of message is that to send out?
	The Secretary of State told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee last week that he did not wish to erect a barrier to the setting up of the institutions. In this case, he did not want us to insist that Sinn Fein should desist from that kind of poisoning of people's minds. He went on to say that
	there is no question that it is unsustainable in the medium-term, let alone the long- term, for parties to seek to have ministers in an executive when they are not co-operating with the police even at the most basic level or at a local level.
	What is the medium term? How long can a Minister stay in office while the kind of poison that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford have describedabout not co-operating with the policeis pumped out by activists on the street?
	At the weekend I did a television interview with a Sinn Fein representative. During the interview, I asked her whether she and her organisation would advise someone who had witnessed or had evidence of a rape to go to the police. One would have thought that a woman who was asked about that kind of issue would respond, Of course, such a violation should be immediately reported to the police, and anyone with information should go to the police. However, all I got was rhetoric about the police recruiting informers and gathering intelligence in republican areas. Even as a woman, that Sinn Fein representative could not say unequivocally We want people to report rapes to the police, and to give evidence. Someone who wants to be a Minister in a Government and who still associates with a party which, collectively and in terms of its individual members, gives such advice to the public is not fit to be in Government, and a Government containing such people will not, in my view, be sustainable.

Nigel Dodds: Does not the point become rather more telling when we consider that one of the responsibilities of the social development Ministera post that this Minister currently holds hererelates to antisocial behaviour orders, under housing legislation? It would be possible for a devolved social development Minister to deal with antisocial behaviour legislation in a housing context while not being prepared to tell people to support the PSNI, the agency that might be involved in enforcing the legislation. Surely that is nonsense.

Sammy Wilson: It would also be possible for an Education Minister not to encourage the public to give evidence when schools had been attacked and windows broken. I think that the new clause is a step in the right direction.
	I was perturbed by the Secretary of State's apparent acceptance that Sinn Fein had done all that it could. When I pressed him again, he said:
	I do not want a late pre-condition established on top of the absolutely correct demands that have been made of republicans that they decommission, that they end their paramilitary activity and they end their criminality.
	It would seem that the Secretary of State is sending a signal to Sinn Fein, saying You have done all these things, we are thankful, and we do not want to press you any further.
	Let me make it clear that this is not a new precondition. It is not an attempt to create a hurdle. It is a long-standing requirement. It is what was meant by the reference in the pledge of office to being committed to entirely democratic and peaceful means. That must involve upholding and supporting the police, which has not been done. It is therefore important for us to send the right signal.
	I take the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). I believe that this argument has been weakened somewhat by the activities of one of the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland. At least in the House of Commons, even today, all who represent the Unionist tradition have made it clear that they envisage no role in Government for those who have been involved in terrorism.
	Only last week, when the Secretary of State appeared before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) put on record what the IMC report had said in paragraphs 2.30 and 2.31 about the activities of the Ulster Volunteer Force. I will not read it out now, because time is short. Two days later, the hon. Lady was completely undermined by her own party, which seemed to have ignored all that the IMC had said because, in terms of ministerial posts, it was in its interests to do so. That was the reason given. At the weekend I conducted an interview with one of the party's leading negotiators, and that was the only reason he gave. He did not say that it would help the UUP to persuade the UVF to give up its guns and its criminality; he simply said that it would give the party an extra position should an Executive be established.
	I believe that that cynical exercise has, to an extent, undermined the position that the Unionists have adopted. I should make it clear, however, that we believe the same requirement should apply across the board. We cannot allow it to be weakened by the fact that some may have decided for cynical reasons to ally themselves with those whom the IMC has accused of being engaged in all kinds of criminal and terrorist activity.
	This is an important new clause. The Government must stop being ambivalent toward the behaviour of Sinn Fein and its associates, and toward that of others involved in terrorist activity. It does not matter whether or not the Minister includes this test in the Bill: we will apply it to Sinn Fein. It would be much better to include that test in the Bill, however, so that the clear message is sent to terrorists and to Sinn Fein that the whole democratic body of the United Kingdom supports the test and requires that it is met. But we will make the judgment, and as we have made clear today, if Sinn Fein persists in its refusal to back law and order and the police, and persists in its refusal to encourage those who are influenced by it to support the police, it will not be regarded as fit for government and will not be included in the Executive.
	The Minister is keen to have devolution in Northern Ireland by the end of November. The one way to ensure that that does not happen is to allow Sinn Fein to believe that it is not going to be pushed into doing the proper thing, the democratic thing, the right thing, which is to support the police, who will have to enforce the laws that they would wish to pass in an Executive.

David Hanson: For the avoidance of any doubt, I say straight away to the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that I will not be ambivalent in my comments on support for policing. This Government, the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) and I all believe that Sinn Fein should be involved in, sign up to and support policing, and that it should take its places on the Policing Board. I am not going to defend in this House a situation in which attacks on schools could occur, or in which individuals are not encouraged to go to the police to ensure that information about rapes is passed on. I make it clear to the hon. Member for East Antrim and others that the Government look forward to the day when Sinn Fein members take their place on the Policing Board and all citizens of Northern Ireland respect and support policing in the community and at large.
	We share the aim of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson)

William McCrea: Let us be clear: simply joining the Policing Board is not the test; the test is actively supporting the actions of the security forces as they establish democracy, the rule of law and the end of criminality in Northern Ireland.

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman knows that I share those objectives.

William McCrea: indicated assent.

David Hanson: I believe that everybody has the right to support the rule of law in that way. My problem with the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury relates to the ability to legislate according to it. First, it is important to put on the record that there is movement in the direction of travel that those who have spoken today want to see. In paragraph 2.19 of its 10th report, the Independent Monitoring Commissionan independent body, not the Government or a political party represented in this Housestates:
	We believe that the leadership
	of Sinn Fein and of the IRA
	has accepted the need to engage in policing if it is to achieve its aim of devolution of policing and justice to an Assembly and Executive in Northern Ireland. It has not...yet determined how this might be delivered,
	but it has said that it wishes to see that direction of travel.
	Paragraph 2.13 of the report states:
	It remains our absolutely clear view that the PIRA leadership has committed itself to following a peaceful path.
	I recognise that there is more work to be done, and in my role as Minister I will do all that I can to ensure that that it is done. The hon. Member for East Antrim said that there is a problem of definition with the new clause, and that is the nub of the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) intimated as much, because we cannot define what the rule of law means or what support for it means. We know the direction of travel in broad terms, but I cannot define it in legislation.

Laurence Robertson: The Minister will be aware that the word most often used in law is reasonable. It is not possible to define exactly what that means.

David Hanson: I put my points to the House and that is one of the points that it is important to recognise. I draw the attention of hon. Members back to a point that I discussed earlier, which concerns the pledge of office. The pledge of office in place at present ensures that all Ministers must affirm, before taking any post, a commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means. The current pledge of office can also be affected by IMC recommendationsand that is an important point. For example, if a future IMC report determined that individuals or organisations were not acting in the spirit of the pledge of office, safeguards are in place so that action could be taken.

Patrick Cormack: I have a high regard for the Minister, as he knows, but there are times when the Government have to behave with real firmness. We need the smack of firm Government. The Government must tell these people that unless they make such a pledge, there is no place for them in the Government of any part of the UK. If the Government do not do that, they will not achieve devolved Government in Northern Irelandwhich we want them to achieve.

David Hanson: I reciprocate the hon. Gentleman's sentiments, but he will understand that every hon. Member who has spoken today shares the same objective. I simply do not feel that legislating for it in the way proposed, with due respect to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, would achieve that end or, for the reasons of definition mentioned by the hon. Member for East Antrim, be applicable.

Ian Paisley: The situation arose after those men had taken that pledge: they resorted to violence and some of them made statements justifying it. Why was nothing done then? The Government did not say that those men had to leave the Executive: they closed down the whole lot. I was accused of a sin and so were all the other Members, but those men were not.

David Hanson: If the right hon. Gentleman is not happy with the current pledge of office and its operationI take it from his comments that he is notI have given a commitment previously, and I reaffirm it today, that we are happy to consider further legislation in due course on a stronger pledge of office, if such measures are produced by agreement as part of discussions of strand 1 issues. He will know that I am happy to discuss that and, in fact, I have sat across a table from his colleagues and raised the prospect with them.
	For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that the Government are committed to supporting the rule of law and the involvement of Sinn Fein and other interested parties in policing. That is essential, but the new clause would not assist in that process and I ask the hon. Member for Tewkesbury to withdraw it.

Laurence Robertson: Given the fact that we have to finish this debate in less than a minute, I do not have time to go through the various arguments that have been made. The new clause is not watertight, but no legislation is. However, as the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said, it would be a significant move in the right direction if we were to adopt it. I therefore have no option but to press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	 The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 274.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 It being after Six o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker  put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [13 March].

Clause 30
	  
	Extent

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 20, line 29, at end insert
	'(3) Section (Sustainable development) extends to Northern Ireland only.' [Huw Irranca-Davies.]

Clause 16
	  
	Department with policing and justice functions

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 12, line 30, after 'subsection' insert '(2A),'.
	No. 3, in page 12, line 30, at end insert
	'(2A) The Act may provide for the department to be in the charge of a Northern Ireland Minister appointed by virtue of a nomination
	(a) made by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly; and
	(b) approved by a resolution of the Assembly passed with the support of a majority of the members voting on the motion for the resolution, a majority of the designated Nationalists voting and a majority of the designated Unionists voting.'.
	No. 4, in page 12, line 40, at end insert
	'(4A) There must not, at any time, be more than one department in relation to which provision of the kind mentioned in any of subsections (2A), (3) and (4) is made by Act of the Assembly.'.
	No. 5, in page 13, line 5, leave out from beginning to end of line 10 and insert
	'(b) immediately before the matter became a transferred matter, was a devolved policing and justice matter (within the meaning given by section 4(6)).'.
	No. 6, in page 13, line 13, leave out subsection (3). [ Huw Irranca-Davies. ]

Schedule 2
	  
	Department with policing and justice functions

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 22, line 20, at end insert

'PART A1

Department in charge of minister approved by resolution of assembly

Introduction
	A1 (1) This Part of this Schedule has effect in relation to a Northern Ireland department
	(a) the functions of which consist wholly or mainly of devolved policing and justice functions; and
	(b) in relation to which an Act of the Assembly provides, by virtue of section 21A(2A), for it to be in the charge of a Northern Ireland Minister (the relevant Minister) appointed by virtue of a nomination
	(i) made by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly; and
	(ii) approved by a resolution of the Assembly passed with the support of a majority of the members voting on the motion for the resolution, a majority of the designated Nationalists voting and a majority of the designated Unionists voting.
	(2) In this paragraph devolved policing and justice function has the same meaning as in section 21A (see subsection (6) of that section).
	Section 18 not to apply to relevant Minister
	A2 (1) Section 18 (Northern Ireland Ministers) shall not apply in relation to
	(a) the relevant Minister; or
	(b) the Ministerial office held by the relevant Minister (the relevant Ministerial office),
	and paragraph A3 shall apply instead.
	(2) But the references to Ministerial offices in
	(a) subsection (1)(c) and (d) of section 18; and
	(b) subsection (5) of that section (in the definition of M),
	shall be taken to include the relevant Ministerial office.
	Provisions relating to relevant Minister
	A3 (1) Where any of the conditions in paragraphs (a) to (e) of section 18(1) is satisfied
	(a) the relevant Minister shall (if holding office at the time) cease to hold office; and
	(b) the relevant Ministerial office shall be filled by applying sub-paragraphs (3) to (6) within a period specified in standing orders.
	(2) The relevant Ministerial office shall be filled by applying sub-paragraphs (3) to (6) before section 18(2) to (6) is applied in relation to the other Ministerial offices.
	(3) The First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly shall nominate a member of the Assembly to hold the relevant Ministerial office.
	(4) The nomination shall not take effect unless it is approved by a resolution of the Assembly passed with the support of
	(a) a majority of the members voting on the motion for the resolution;
	(b) a majority of the designated Nationalists voting; and
	(c) a majority of the designated Unionists voting.
	(5) If
	(a) the nomination does not take effect within a period specified in standing orders; or
	(b) the nominated person does not take up the office for which he has been nominated within that period,
	a further nomination of a member of the Assembly shall be made under sub-paragraph (3).
	(6) Sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) shall be applied as many times as may be necessary to secure that the relevant Ministerial office is filled.
	(7) The holding of office as First Minister or deputy First Minister shall not prevent a person being nominated to hold the relevant Ministerial office.
	(8) The relevant Minister shall not take up office until he has affirmed the terms of the pledge of office.
	(9) The relevant Minister shall cease to hold office if
	(a) he resigns by notice in writing to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister;
	(b) he ceases to be a member of the Assembly otherwise than by virtue of a dissolution; or
	(c) he is dismissed by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly and the Presiding Officer is notified of his dismissal.
	(10) If the relevant Minister ceases to hold office at any time, otherwise than by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), the relevant Ministerial office shall be filled by applying sub-paragraphs (3) to (6) within a period specified in standing orders.
	(11) Where
	(a) the Assembly has resolved under section 30(2) that a political party does not enjoy its confidence; and
	(b) the party's period of exclusion under that provision has not come to an end,
	no member of that party may be nominated under sub-paragraph (3).
	(12) Where
	(a) the Secretary of State has given a direction under section 30A(5) in respect of a political party; and
	(b) the party's period of exclusion under that provision has not come to an end,
	no member of that party may be nominated under sub-paragraph (3).
	(13) In this paragraph, a reference to a period of exclusion under any provision is, in the case of a period of exclusion under that provision which has been extended, a reference to that period as extended.'.
	No. 8, in page 22, line 33, leave out 'subsections (6) and (7)' and insert 'subsection (6)'.
	No. 9, in page 25, line 17, leave out 'subsections (6) and (7)' and insert 'subsection (6)'.
	No. 10, in page 28, line 9, leave out '21A(3)' and insert '21A(2A), (3)'. [ Huw Irranca-Davies .]

Schedule 4
	  
	Minor and consequential amendments

Amendments made: No. 11, in page 35, line 25,leave out from 'after' to end of line and insert 'section insert 4(6),'.
	No. 12, in page 36, line 10, at end insert
	'Inquiries Act 2005 (c.12)
	13A In section 30 (Northern Ireland inquiries), in subsection (6), for subsection (3), (4) or (5) substitute any of subsections (3) to (5).' [Huw Irranca-Davies.]
	 Order for Third Reading read.

David Hanson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	We have had a positive debate [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If hon. Members are not staying for the debate, could they leave quickly and quietly?

David Hanson: Over the course of its consideration, on Second Reading, in Committeeparticularly given that there was a Committee of the whole Houseand on Report, we have had a useful discussion about the principles of the Bill. I commend right hon. and hon. Members on their valuable contributions to today's debate. Contrary to assertions made by Members, the Government have listened to some of the points that have been made and have tabled amendments that have made a material difference to the nature of the Bill. As with every piece of legislation, it is not possible to accept every amendment or every point made in the debate. There will be differences between us, but I have moved on several points and I am pleased to see that those have been incorporated in the Third Reading of the Bill.
	As right hon. and hon. Members will know, there is a clear path open to us now on Northern Ireland's political development to ensure that, as has been stated by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, by the end of 2006 we bring about clear political progress for the political organisations in Northern Ireland and for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. It is now for local politicians to take forward that task of devolution. I am pleased that we are meeting today, in the week that the Assembly reconvened following the passing of earlier legislation; that we have in place Assembly Members who are signed up again to take part in the Assembly; and that we had debates on the Floor of the Assembly this week, with participation from Members from across the Assembly. I believe, as do the Government, that the Assembly offers a better future for Northern Ireland. Now, through the Bill, we are in a position to take forward the possible next stages of devolution in Northern Ireland by devolving criminal justice and policing.
	Given what has been said today, no one fails to accept that there are still major hurdles to overcome and that work must be done, not least to get the proper Executive-led Assembly back in place by November. Additionally, difficulties are self-evident to anyone who has been involved in our debates on the possible devolution of criminal justice and policing. However, the Bill sets a clear path before the House: devolution in October or NovemberI hopeat the very latest with the Executive back in place. At some point in the future, we will have the framework and opportunity for the devolution of criminal justice and policing. For the sake of having the discussion again, the famous tripleor perhaps now even quadruplelock is in place whereby the Assembly, the Secretary of State and the Government must agree with the House of Commons if such devolution is to take place. In all essence, however, the framework is in place.
	The framework is in place because, hopefully, no one can deny that there is progress towards a political solution in Northern Ireland, however slow that might seem. The latest IMC report of 26 April states that the Provisional IRA leadership is committed to a peaceful path. There is work to be done and efforts to be undertaken, but we must realise that there is movement and that Northern Ireland today is unrecognisable from how it was at the height of the troubles in recent years.
	The Bill makes progress on the devolution of policing and criminal justice, but it does much more than that. It takes forward the modernisation of our electoral system so that we will be brought in line, over a staged period, with the rest of the United Kingdom's electoral law on political party funding. It also modernises the electoral canvass and allows for the appointment and operation of the chief electoral officer. Again, it does so to put Northern Ireland in a fair frame of progress towards proper elections and electoral law.
	The Bill also provides for an extension to the order-making power under the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 to facilitate the continued decommissioning of loyalist weapons. That issue has been a major bone of contention today, but I will press, along with hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially the hon. Member for North Down(Lady Hermon) and DUP Members, for the decommissioning of loyalist weapons. The Bill puts in place a framework to give us extra time, should we need it.
	The Bill will also make important contributions to the existing criminal justice and policing regimes in Northern Ireland. It will give investigators and prosecutors new powers to tackle serious and organised crime. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is new to his position, will be taking forward those measures in due course to ensure that we do what we say we will do, namely, crack down on organised crime and criminality in Northern Ireland. We will continue to take the effective steps that have been seen over the past few weeks to tackle the cross-border smuggling of petrol and cigarettes, and other problems.
	An issue close to the heart of the hon. Member for North Down is central to the Bill. The Bill provides corporation sole status to the office of the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I gave her an assurance that we would do that when we were considering the on-the-runs legislation in Committee and, following her representations, we have done so. We have responded to her concerns, sodare I say?the Government have listened. We have also responded to other points that members of that Committee raised, albeit not all of them.
	There are several other key aspects of the Bill that we should consider. Only today I moved a new clause on sustainable development, which is now part of the Bill, to ensure that we protect our environment for our children and grandchildren. We have introduced important measures to safeguard the future of the environment and are giving legal status to the59 million investment that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has brought forward to support sustainable development. That means, in real life, that we can use the 59 million to do important things for the people of Northern Ireland. That includes putting solar panelsthis is part of my political domainin new social build housing, with 600 panels this year and 600 next year, to help the environment. Those are the challenges on improving our environment.
	The Bill also contains key provisions for a single wholesale electricity market, with opportunities for new investment, new efficiencies, new economies of scale and security of supplythe things that matter to the people on the island of Ireland as a whole, both north and south of the border. It is a pragmatic approach, welcomed by all hon. Members, to support the economic well-being of Northern Ireland in the future. The Bill achieves what it set out to achieveit helps us to make progress on the devolution of policing; it modernises our election law; it provides support for sustainable development; and it looks at giving extra support to tackling crime. It is a good Bill.
	On behalf of the ministerial team, I thank the many officials from the Northern Ireland Office and the devolved Executive, reporting to direct rule Ministers, for the time and effort that they put in over many weeks, months and, in some cases, years, to bring the clauses to fruition. A tremendous amount of work went on behind the scenes. As a Minister, it is important that I recognise that.
	The Bill will add to the value of Northern Ireland and add strength to devolution. I commend it to the House.

Laurence Robertson: By and large, we welcome the Bill, although we have tried to improve it in various ways. I thank the Minister for the way in which he introduced it and took it through Committee. It has been possible to explore it in great detail, and he was always willing to take interventions. It does credit to the House that we have analysed it in that way, in particular on the Floor of the House, which has been useful in part.
	We have some concerns. We were worried about abolishing the annual canvass and tried to put a time scale on that so that there would be canvasses in 2015 at the latest and every 10 years after that. We were also a little concerned about the ability of the chief electoral officer, working with the Secretary of State, to cancel those canvasses, but we are where we are and we recognise the need to modernise the system. The important thing is that we have a full register of electors in Northern Ireland.
	We were a bit concerned about the donations for political purposes, although we did not touch on that greatly. We would have liked a time limit on donations from the Republic of Ireland, but the Government turned that down. I regret that. We tabled an amendment to address that, but sadly we did not reach it because of the lack of time. However, those donations remain a concern, for obvious reasons.
	The biggest issue covered by the Bill is the devolution of policing and justice. Although we have no objection to that in principle, we have discussed it at length and are worried that responsibility for it could fall into the wrong hands. I recognise that we have the double-double lock, the treble lock or the quadruple lockor whatever it isand that the Assembly does not have to accept responsibility for policing and justice. However, whether or not policing and justice are devolved, the points raised in connection with that are extremely important.
	I spoke about my experiences in South Armagh, but did not get a chance to expand on those because of the 6 o'clock deadline. When I visited it last weekI was pleased that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee also visited it last week, and that the Chairman confirmed that my experiences were hisit was stressed that there had been a huge improvement in the area. However, it can by no means be considered normal when the police cannot go out on their own. That is not acceptable in any part of the United Kingdom. Whether certain people in that area like it or not, it is part of the United Kingdom. One of the most alarming things was that the police told me that the MP for that area would not engage with them. That is unacceptable, especially when that person is a Member of the Assembly, could become a Minister, and could become the Minister with responsibility for the police. However, at this point that person will not engage with them. Moving on from that, we wanted to try to make it a little more secure that people holding office in Northern Ireland actually supported the rule of law.
	The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) mentioned that when he did a television programme and asked a Sinn Fein supporter whether they would report a crime, he gave as an example the crime of rape. If someone had such knowledge and did not report it, they would not be upholding the rule of law. It is not acceptable for such a person to sit in government. It is unfortunate that the Minister did not accept our amendments in that respect. We pressed them to the vote and did not win, but we made the point. It was not a watertight measure, but it would have moved the situation in the right direction.
	Again, we have not discussed the electricity market in great detail on the Floor of the House, although we discussed it upstairs. My understandingthis is not a criticism; it has been a good startis that the Bill does not create the wholesale electricity market, as it is headlined in the Bill. According to the discussions I have had with the authorities in Northern Ireland, it will provide the ability to coordinate the regulation of the market in Northern Ireland with the regulation of the market in the Republic of Ireland. That may be a useful step but, in order for consumers in Northern Ireland to get the full benefit of that, they need to go further and to have a true market covering the whole of Ireland and, indeed, possibly the whole of Ireland and the United Kingdom. A bigger market, especially if they can move towards a freer market, will lead to lower electricity prices.
	I welcome the possibility of financial assistance for energy purposes, which is in clause 23, especially renewable energy. It is important that we develop renewable energy, first, because it is renewable and helps to reduce emissions of poisonous gases, and secondly, because it would provide security of supply. We have seen throughout the world a rather unsettled market in primary sources of energy. If we look at what is happening in certain areas of South America and at the behaviour of Russia on one or two occasions, it is clear that we need a more secure energy supply in this country.
	I pay tribute to the answer that the Prime Minister gave during Prime Minister's questions today. He gave a balanced and positive view of energy policy. I hope that he has the courage to pursue that policy against the opposition of certain members of his own party. It is important that he does so. I give a word of warning on clause 23. In Great Britain, we have not developed renewable energy as well as we should. It still provides a very small percentage of the electricity that we use. If we are going to pursue that in Northern Ireland, we need to do more not only on energy conservation, but on the development of renewable energy. It is not being developed in this country quickly enough. I hope that we can use the Bill to study why that has not been the case and to move on renewable energy a little more quickly in Northern Ireland than we have in Great Britain.
	I have made just a few observations; perhaps other hon. Members want to contribute. By and large, we welcome the Bill. There are not many of my colleagues here tonight, but they have contributed a great deal in Committee, particularly the Chairman of the Select Committee. I thank them for their help and support during the passage of the Bill.

Eddie McGrady: Generally, my party welcomes the Bill, which is more miscellaneous than most of us expected. The Minister said that he has achieved what he set out to achieve, and that seems to have been his attitude every time that he saw a new draft or provision. None the less, the Bill usefully deals with the multitude of issues mentioned by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). Some of its provisions are essential, some are useful and some are convenient but, none the less, they all contribute to the whole.
	On behalf of my party, may I pay tribute to Ministers who have moved on from the Northern Ireland Office, hopefully to greater things as a result of the fine training that we gave them and the multi-faceted experience that they gained? May I welcome to the Front Bench the new Ministers with whom we hope to do good business in the months ahead? The Bill is interesting, as it does not have a central theme and changes gear in each part. I was disappointed that we did not manage to debate some of our new clauses because of the 6 o'clock deadline. That is especially true of the new clause that deals with the powers of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Notwithstanding the lack of debate, perhaps the Minister can take on board our efforts to give the commission powers that are available to other human rights commissions, especially in the south of Ireland, so that it can act in accordance with European Union requirements on human rights. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission does not have investigatory powers to pursue people and papers.

David Hanson: Given that we failed to reach new clause 9, may I give my hon. Friend an assurance that we seek to implement the results of our consultation on the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission at an appropriate time? His proposal may not have found favour today, but its broad principles should receive Government support in future.

Eddie McGrady: I thank the Minister for giving an undertaking, on the record, to pursue the matter with more urgency. I recall that the issue was to be examined six years ago.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been lenient with the hon. Gentleman, who has received more than he expected. We are now debating the contents of the Bill.

Eddie McGrady: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is no harm in making the attempt, but I accept your rap on the knuckles.
	I thank the Minister not just for his intervention, but for the commitments, undertakings and reviews that he has promised in the months ahead. The atmosphere in Committee and throughout proceedings on the Bill is indicative of a new understanding or tolerance across the Floor of the House. I experienced it, too, when we debated the Northern Ireland Act 2006. A clear understanding of the needs and requirements of the two communities in Northern Ireland was given positive expression, and I hope that that will be translated substantively and directly to the new Assembly, which was reconvened on Monday and Tuesday this week. I am sure that it is appropriate to say in the House that we wish the Assembly a fair wind in dealing with the many difficult problems that it faces to enable people to move from entrenched positions so that they can accommodate one another. The contents of this and other Bills will assist that process. Hopefully, this will be the last such Bill to come before the House, because all the matters that it covers, with the exception of reserved matters, will be dealt with by an Executive of the Northern Ireland parties on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments about the new Assembly. I also welcome the participation of the SDLP in the proceedings of the Assembly earlier this week. Will he join me in expressing regret that one partySinn Feinwhich absents itself from this House, was also absent on Tuesday from the debate on the economy? Is it not time that it ended its abstentionism?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) again that we are discussing precisely the contents of the Bill today.

Eddie McGrady: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That saves me thinking of a suitable response to the last intervention. I shall simply say, Noted and agreed.
	Some of the comments made on Report disturbed me. It seemed as though certain parties were flagging up new pre-conditions for the effective devolution of policing and justice. Without going into detail because of the time factor, I urge the Government to do all in their power not to fall into the trap that they have fallen into repeatedly with demands from Sinn Fein and, with respect, demands from the Democratic Unionist party, which are pre-conditions to further progress. The whole thrust and ethos of making progress in Northern Ireland is that no party has a veto on progress over other parties. That has been neglected or severely damaged in the past two or three years.
	Even today, a certain pre-condition seemed to be imposed by the DUP, which sounded to me like an everlasting ban on Sinn Fein being accepted into government. That sounded a negative notethe only negative note. I know the concerns that DUP Members have, because I have exactly the same concerns. We cannot have people in government who do not fully, honestly and openly support law and order. However, that should not be used in a dramatic way in terms of the purity of the situation.
	It is difficult when one is dealing with human relationships and things evolve and change daily. We should not box ourselves in with pre-conditions. For instance, the Government allowed Sinn Fein to say that it would not join the Policing Board until the DUP agreed to the devolution of policing and justice. That is a crazy situation, in which we should not allow ourselves to be involved. We need openness to achieve progress in Northern Ireland. The Bill, with its various provisions covering elections, funding, donations and the matters that we discussed today regarding policing and justice, will contribute to a healthy debate in Northern Ireland. I hope that we can translate the very good atmosphere in the House today to the Floor of the Assembly. If we do, the hope of achieving full, lasting and proper devolution to Northern Ireland will be greatly enhanced.

Lembit �pik: When I think of the range of the Billsustainable development, policing and justice, criminal damage, registration of electors, children, commitment to the rule of law, powers of the Human Rights Commission, primacy in intelligence gathering, donations to political parties and so onit is amazing that it is possible to be out of order on any of the subjects that we have covered, but we have even achieved that.
	I noted the Minister's praise of his team. He has made some terrible mistakes by not listening more to the sage advice offered to him by Opposition parties. I know from personal experience how wonderful the Northern Ireland Office team is, and no doubt they support him superbly. I am sure that they agree that the Minister should have taken on some of our amendments, given their fine judgments on these matters.
	The Minister has shown some signs of listening in the past few hours. If in some small way we have opened his ears to be more inclusive in his politics with regard to Northern Ireland, then the debate on Report and Third Reading will have been worthwhile.
	The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) highlighted some issues about which he is concerned. I broadly agree with him and share the same concerns, which I do not need to repeat.
	I remain concerned that there is a weakness in the 50:50:50 process in securing cross-community support, and I am worried that that will once again get in the way in the months ahead. I hope that the Minister will at least take on board and consider our points on that matter.
	I am also concerned about the census. We have made a mistake by allowing such a preposterously long period in keeping the census up to date. All the good work and the enormous investment of time and money which has been carried out to make sure that we have the most accurate electoral register in the United Kingdom will fade away because of the length of time between electoral censuses. Once again, I hope that the Minister will reflect on that point, and if my rather gloomy prediction turns out to be right, perhaps the Government will revisit the enormously long period between censuses.
	Finally, I recently saw a fine show in Majorca called, PiratesI attended to help raise money for Great Ormond Street hospital. As I watched the show, I thought about how this Government plunder the goodwill of Northern Ireland politicianssome of us have covered this particular portfolio for almost a decade. They have stolen money from students by introducing a truly unpopular method of student support, and they have also threatened the Northern Irish people with enormous hikes in their utility bills in order to undo damage which was not caused by the citizens themselves.
	If the politicians of Northern Ireland use this Bill and other legislation as a spur to restart the Stormont Assembly, then Northern Ireland will not have to endure the injustices that are endlessly meted out to them by the Government as a whole rather than by this particular Minister.

David Hanson: indicated assent.

Lembit �pik: Look how quickly the Minister is willing to blame his colleagues as he seeks to protect himself.
	There will be no hiding place if the Assembly is re-established. I respectfully point out once again that there is a powerful incentive for Northern Ireland politicians to regard this Bill, which will soon be enacted, and other legislation, as an opportunity to provide a firewall between the legislation that the Government will impose through Statutory Instrument Committees and the alternative legislation that Northern Ireland politicians are collectively likely to introduce in the Assembly. As the Bill passes into law, I hope that the DUP and others find it easier to work together, even with those parties that they still distrust and unquestionably dislike, because it is surely in the greater interests of the citizens whom they represent for those differences to be managed and Northern Ireland politics to be established on a devolutionary footing, which I hope and believe that we all want to see.

Ian Paisley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me for two minutes. I will try to keep my word, although I did not give it.
	I was surprised by the remarks of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). He has been preaching for a very long time that we must all bow to the Anglo-Irish agreement, which he says is the great test. The Anglo-Irish agreement[Hon. Members: The Belfast agreement.] Whatever one likes to call itGood Friday, bad Friday or rotten Friday. I want to say to the House that this is where the government of Northern Ireland, and what we do, should be decided. It should not be decided by votes taken in the south of Ireland and then people scrambling out every time there is difficulty saying, The whole of Ireland agreed to this. The whole of Ireland has nothing to do with it. This is the United Kingdom and we have a right to decide what we do.
	We are making no pre-conditions. Everybody knows what I have said; I have been saying it for a long time. I have been castigated and kicked in this House, treated as a leper, refused admittance to Downing street for two years and six months, and so on and so forth, and I am still saying the same thing. The Prime Minister said the same thing from the Front Bench. If he wants to break his word to the people of Northern Ireland, we will not be breaking our word to the people who have voted for us.
	We are in great difficulties because on Monday and Tuesday we discovered that the Ulster Unionist party had entered into an agreement with the Progressive Unionist party. Any Minister of this Government who is prepared to defend the PUP has only to read what the report that Government Ministers love to readthe Independent Monitoring Commission reporthas said about it. All that I can say is that we have a tougher road to travel, and we had better remember that. I hope that this House will remember that, by passing this Bill without amendments that would have been useful to us in the battle to keep to democracy, it is really responsible for what happens.
	I think that I have exceeded my time, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Thank you.

Peter Robinson: I thank the Minister for the way in which he has led throughout the various stages of the passage of the Bill. I join other hon. Members in welcoming the two new Ministers who are sitting with him on the Front Bench. I hope that they have a profitable and enjoyable time in Northern Ireland. I also hope that they get an opportunity to get out and see its many beauties, most of which are confined to east Belfast

Ian Paisley: The Giant's Causeway.

William McCrea: South Antrim.

Peter Robinson: Any other bids?
	Let me go beyond the welcomes to say that I appreciate that the Government have made some amendments that improve the Bill. Should the circumstances ever arise whereby policing and justice powers can be devolved, my party, regardless of what any other party does, believes in the primacy of the electoral mandate. As a party, we are mandated to seek devolution for Northern Ireland. We want that devolution to be stable, accountable, effective and efficient. Those were the principles that we enunciated for many years. I believe that we have moved towards that, making some progress along the way, but barriers still remain. The principal barrier has been Sinn Fein and its relationship with the IRA, to which it is inextricably linked. As a party that was entitled to be in government under existing legislation, it was clearly necessary that it met the standards of democracy, that it decommissioned all its weapons, and that it ensured that there was a complete and unalterable end to all of its paramilitary and criminal activity.
	Those are all essentials for government. They are even more essential in relation to the devolution of policing and justice suggested in the Bill. When the last report by the Independent Monitoring Commission was published, we said openly in this House that some progress had been made, but that there were still grey areas and loose ends that needed to be addressed. So I am sure that the Minister will accept that many of us were shocked when a spanner was thrown into the works this week by the irrational decision of the Ulster Unionist party to embrace the Progressive Unionist party, whose members are the spokespersons for the UVF.
	I knew instinctively that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) would be opposed to that marriage, and that was confirmed during the debate. The relationship undermines her, however, and I regret these circumstances because there will now be a mountain to climb in regard to devolution unless these matters can be undone. We will await the ruling of the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly on this, but the Speaker can rule in favour of the decision of the Ulster Unionist party Assembly group only if she believes that that group is a separate political party. The party's representatives indicated that they had formed a new political party. That is what the Speaker was instructed by the Ulster Unionist party's Assembly representatives

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not quite clear how the hon. Gentleman's remarks relate to the content of the Bill. Perhaps he could make that clear.

Peter Robinson: The Bill covers a number of miscellaneous matters relating to the government of Northern Ireland and matters that will, in due course, be able to be devolved to the Government there. Unfortunately, that Government is less likely to be formed because of the situation that has developed in the Assembly. However, I want to give Front-Benchers some time to wind up the debate.
	I will round off my remarks by saying that this issue must be addressed, because the conditions remain the same, whether we are talking about paramilitarism from a Unionist background or a nationalist background. We are not prepared to be in government with those who are linked to paramilitary organisations. It would be ironic if, in the months or years ahead, Sinn Fein and the republican movement were to be given a clean bill of health and the Government could proceed, only for the Ulster Unionist party to delay that process because of a relationship with a paramilitary organisation. Those issues have to be dealt with; they cannot be ducked.
	This relationship has certainly not been formed for the altruistic purpose that the hon. Lady was told by the leader of her party, who was no doubt squirming when he said that the purpose was to try to take the UVF away from its paramilitary activities. The purpose was self-serving: it was to try to increase the number of Ministries that the Ulster Unionist party would get. That has not worked, and it will not work. Indeed, my party would have ensured that Sinn Fein would not have got a third Ministry. There were at least four strategies to ensure that that would not happen. The Ulster Unionist party was not robbing Sinn Fein of a Ministry. It thought that it was robbing the DUP, but it will find out that it has not.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Draft Legal Services Bill (Joint Committee)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the Lords Message of 11th May relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and report on any draft Legal Services Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown be now considered.
	That this House concurs with the Lords that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on any draft Legal Services Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown, and that the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 25th July 2006.
	That the Committee shall have power
	(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
	(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	(iii) to report from time to time;
	(iv) to appoint specialist advisers; and
	(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.
	That the quorum of the Committee shall be two; and
	That Mr David Burrowes, Michael Jabez Foster, John Hemming, Stephen Hesford, Mr David Kidney and Emily Thornberry be members of the Committee. [Mr. Roy.]

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the hon. Gentleman has to make a speech.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is this speech required on my objection to motion 3 on the Order Paper?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should indicate briefly why he wishes to object.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you for your helpful guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	This is a procedural motion of far-reaching constitutional importance that should be considered in much greater detail, rather than being put through on the nod in this way. We should have a full debate on the merits and demerits of the issue, and it is for that reason that I wish to object.
	 Question put:
	 The House proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller, Mr. Deputy Speaker  declared that the Ayes had it.
	 Question agreed to.

Rana Faruqui

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Roy.]

Theresa May: I am grateful to the Speaker for giving me this opportunity to raise the case of a daughter of a constituent. I want to speak about the brutal murder of Rana Faruqui, the handling of that case by Thames Valley police and the wider issues raised by it.
	In 2003, Rana Faruqui was a bright, attractive, lively 35-year-old working in IT as a business analyst. At work, she met Stephen Griffiths. A relationship started. Stephen Griffiths moved into her home. Several incidents of domestic violence followed, the relationship faltered, and Stephen Griffiths left her home. After he left her home, several incidents of him stalking Rana Faruqui took place. On 21 July, Rana Faruqui reported by telephone to Thames Valley police that the brake pipes on her car had been cut. Three days later, on 24 July 2003, she went physically to Slough police station and spoke to the police about the fact that those brake pipes had been cut. That report passed from inbox to inbox, and from officer to officer, for 10 whole days. On Saturday 2 August 2003, Stephen Griffiths stabbed and brutally murdered Rana Faruqui.
	I have absolutely no doubt that Thames Valley police failed Rana. They should have taken the issue of the cutting of the brake pipes more seriously. Sadly, Rana's family, having had to face the tragedy of her brutal murder, are left with the feeling that had Thames Valley police acted differently, she might be alive today.
	I am very conscious that there has been a full investigation of the case by Thames Valley police, and that a misconduct hearing in relation to one senior officer is still due to take place. Despite parliamentary privilege I do not intend to name any individual officers, but I hope the Minister will agree that the bare facts that I have outlined raise a degree of concern about the handling of the issue by Thames Valley police. They raise wider issues as well, however, and it is on those that I wish to concentrate.
	When Rana Faruqui's mother Carol came to see me with other members of her family, she was obviously distressed at what had happened to her daughter and at the suffering that the family had experienced following Rana's death, but she was also anxious to ensure that other families were not put through the same distress. She wanted to try to ensure that issues of domestic violence, and particularly of stalking, were taken more seriously by Thames Valley police, and that any lessons from the case were learnt not only by them but by police forces across the country.
	I am grateful to the acting chief constable of Thames Valley police, Sara Thornton, for giving me information about what the force has done following the case. She has not only written to me, but taken the time and trouble to speak to me about it. As a result of my conversation with her, I hope to be able to visit one of the domestic violence units in the Thames Valley area. However, as I have said, I have absolutely no doubt that Rana was failed by Thames Valley police. That raises a number of issues about the approach that the force takes to domestic violence, and the attitude of officers to such violence.
	In 2004-05, there were 14,793 cases of domestic violence in the Thames Valley area. That is an increase of about 15 per cent. on the number of cases in 2003-04. I am aware that since then the Government have introduced a Bill to deal with domestic violence, and that more recently the Home Office has issued guidance to police forces on the handling of domestic violence cases. The acting chief constable tells me that Thames Valley police has adopted a rather more rigorous approach of risk assessment
	in all domestic violence or 'stalker' type cases,
	which are now
	reviewed and reassessed by specialist Domestic Violence Officers.
	Investigation management is subject to strict timetables.
	Cases which fall within the risk assessment process are given added scrutiny in respect of 'follow-up' with the emphasis being on early intervention and positive action.
	That is what is happening now, of course; it was not in operation when Rana Faruqui reported those incidents to the police.
	It is important to stress that, by all accounts, Rana was not a shrinking violet who did not know what to do, and did not take action when the incidents happened. She did report them to the police. We all know that many cases of domestic violence are not reported to the police, but she did report those incidents, and the stalking incidents. I think she rightly expected appropriate action to be taken, but sadly it was not.
	Despite the action that has now been taken by Thames Valley police, the case raises several issues. The first is the general attitude of the police to such cases. I want to separate the issues of domestic violence and stalking. As I have said, the Government have taken action on domestic violence issues through their Bill and the guidance that they have now issued to police forces, but I am not convinced that as much emphasis has been placed on the stalking issue, which I believe should be taken very seriously. I suspect and fear that a number of such incidents are not taken as seriously as they should be. In some cases, the police's attitude may well be, It's just somebody who has broken up with her boyfriend, does not want him around and has rung the police to try to get rid of him, but in many others, that is not what is happening.
	There are individuals out there like Stephen Griffiths. It subsequently emerged that although he could at times be very charming, he was also very manipulative and had had a number of broken relationships before he met Ranarelationships in which domestic violence incidents had occurred. So a pattern was being repeated but sadly, there was no evidence: no reporting of that pattern on which Thames Valley police could draw in assessing that case.
	I have some questions for the Minister concerning the seriousness with which stalking is being addressed. Have the Government issued any guidance on dealing with stalking? What is the attitude taken by junior officers, in particular, when they first encounter such incidents? When a junior officer first deals with a reported stalking incident, it is crucial that they take it seriously. As I said earlier, Thames Valley police told me about the various steps that they have taken in dealing with domestic violence, such as risk assessment and the use of specialist domestic violence officers, but they kick in only if the initial report is taken seriously and treated seriously.
	That leads me to the very real issue of the training our police officers, their understanding of such incidents and their recognitionor notof their seriousness. I realise that the 14,793 domestic violence incidents that Thames Valley police had to deal with in 2004-05 is a large number. But in each case where it was shown that such violence had indeed taken place, there was a victim and someone who had acted in a criminal way against them. The police must take a serious approach to such cases.
	I want to ask the Minister about the training of police officers in dealing with stalking. Stalking hits the headlines when it happens to a celebrity and such cases have been reported to the police, but it does not happen just to celebrities. Rana Faruqui was not a celebrity, but she was stalked by Stephen Griffiths, with tragic consequences. What are the police doing to ensure that sufficient training is given to officers, so that they understand the seriousness of such offences and behaviour, and that they recognise it and report it appropriately? They need to ensure that the action that has so far been taken can kick in, that proper risk assessment takes place, and that officers put the emphasis on early intervention, in order to ensure that the tragic consequences of Rana's case are not repeated.
	I want also to ask about guidance from the Home Office itself and from the Association of Chief Police Officers. I hope that the lessons that the Thames Valley police have learned following this incident will be shared with other forces throughout the country. One problem that we have is that police forces often do not share information with each other in an effort to deal with such issues. There is no lack of good intent in that regard: it just happens; there is no culture of sharing information. I have always been of the view that, if someone finds a good way of dealing with a problem, they should share it, because doing so is to the benefit of everybody. There are lessons to be learned, and they should be shared with other forces.
	Is the Home Office doing enough to deal with stalking? Is it introducing guidance and proper measures at police force level? As I said earlier, Rana's mother and the rest of her family are very keen that others should not have to go through the suffering that they have gone through, purely because no lessons are learned and no action is taken by Thames Valley or other forces. They have not just sat around or even just talked to me about it. Rana's sister went over to the US to investigate the action taken there, and she sent me an interesting set of papers about San Diego county, which has established a stalking strike force, a multi-disciplinary approach to the issue. An article by Wayne Maxey, a criminal investigator affiliated with the stalking unit of the San Diego's district attorney's office, describes it as
	A multi-disciplinary approach...one in which both criminal justice and mental health approaches come together to address the problem.
	The Americans find that approach most effective. The article continues:
	The Strike Force strive to evaluate carefully each case and develop effective case management strategies.
	I have here copies of security recommendations for stalking victims and the stalking strike force victim handbookthe information that is given to victims of stalking on what they can do to help to ensure their safety. The evidence from the strike force suggests the need for early intervention, to identify where there is a serious risk and to take appropriate action.
	I am happy to share the information with the Minister. I would also be happy to meet him and share further details of the case that I am not able to share with him in the time available tonight. Rana Faruqui was brutally murdered, despite the fact that she had reported the incidents of stalking andcrucially, in my viewthe cutting of the brake cables of her car to the police. Thames Valley did nothing about that report for 10 days, at the end of which she was dead. Thames Valley police failed Rana, and I want to ensure that nobody else is failed in that way, by Thames Valley or other forces; that the lessons from this case are learned by others; and that the police take cases of domestic violence and, crucially, stalking seriously. Such cases must not be dismissed as women reporting things that have not taken place or trying to get rid of a boyfriend who is being a bit difficult. When someone goes to the police, they must be treated properly and seriously. The police must recognise the danger that can ensue and take action accordingly. We owe it to Rana and her family to ensure that the lessons are learned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must briefly interrupt the debate. I have to report an error in the number reported as having voted in the No Lobby in the deferred Division on the Joint Committee on Conventions. The number voting No was 20, not 19 as reported. The Clerk will arrange for the record to be corrected.

Vernon Coaker: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on securing this important debate, raising the issue of domestic violence and bringing such an appalling crime to the attention of the House. I also congratulate her on the tone of her speech, which was very moving in parts.
	I know that the right hon. Lady has specific concerns about the police handling of domestic homicides, and about Thames Valley police force in particular. I am aware of the tragic circumstances of the death of Rana Faruqui, in August 2003. After suffering months of stalking and harassment from her ex-partner, including the brake pipes on her car being cut, she was fatally stabbed by him, while tending to her horses at her stables. I offer my sympathy to all who knew Miss Faruqui.
	The terrifying facts of this case and other incidents of domestic violence demonstrate the importance of ensuring that the response to the needs of victims of domestic violence is handled earlier and effectively, to reduce the risk of incidents like this occurring, as the right hon. Lady pointed out. She will appreciate that I have been advised that I cannot talk about the handling of individual cases, including this one, but I will outline the comprehensive improvements that have been made by the Thames Valley police force to its handling of domestic violence.
	At the outset, I assure the right hon. Lady that I should, of course, be happy to meet her in my office to discuss matters that it is not possible to raise now. Stalking is one of those matters, and I look forward to her contacting me so that we can organise such a meeting.
	In addition, I shall outline a wide range of measures that the Government have instigated through the national delivery plan for domestic violence. Sweeping changes in case handling have been made across the criminal justice system, including in the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts. Those changes will aid victims and help to prevent cases such as those in the Thames Valley area and beyond. The plan also highlights action to ensure the early identification of victims and perpetrators. In addition, it offers focused support for victims and the better management of perpetrators.
	This debate gives me an opportunity to say a few things. As a new Minister at the Home Office, I was shocked when I was briefed on the scale of the problem that we face. For instance, the House will be appalled to learn the following: that, on average, two women a week are killed in the UK by a male partner or former partner; that in 2003-04 nearly 40 per cent. of all female homicide victims were killed by their current or ex-partner, compared with about 5 per cent. of male homicide victims; that about one in four women and one in six men have been victims of domestic violence since the age of 16, although women are clearly likely to suffer greater injury and be classed as chronic victims; that 89 per cent. of those suffering four or more attacks are women, and that one incident is reported to the police every minute. Moreover, as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead noted, there were more than 14,000 such incidents in the Thames Valley area in 2004-05.
	In addition to the human suffering that is caused by domestic violence, the costs to our economy are staggering. In 2001, domestic violence in England and Wales was estimated to cost a total of 23 billion, of which 3 billion was spent on public services and2.7 billion was absorbed by employers and workers. The cost of human and emotional suffering was putat 17 billion. In addition, the criminal justice system spent 1 billion on domestic violence cases, and300 million was spent by civil legal services.
	In 90 per cent. of incidents involving domestic violence, children are in the same or the next room. Domestic violence also has worrying links to pregnancy: 30 per cent. of domestic violence starts during pregnancy, and existing violence often escalates. Domestic violence accounts for 17 per cent. of all violent crime in the UK. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead probably knows those facts better than I do, but they are another reason why we should welcome the opportunity that this debate gives us to state them in the House.
	Those statistics tell a terrible story, as is highlighted by the case at the heart of this debate, but that story is made far worse when we realise that behind each statistic is a life, and often many lives. Those lives are damaged and sometimes destroyed by the cruel and barbaric acts that are committedand as a man I have to say thismainly by men. I recognise that men and same-sex couples also experience domestic violence, but women are far more likely to experience physical or sexual violence at the hands of men.
	However, I wish to reassure the House that the Government are facing up to our responsibilities, and I should like to outline some of the major steps that we are taking to respond to this most insidious of crimes in all parts of the country, including in the Thames Valley area. The Government take domestic violence very seriously, and that is why we have set up the inter-ministerial group on domestic violence. It is chaired by Baroness Scotland, and draws ministerial membership from across all the major Government Departments. The group performance manages the delivery plan and monitors its progress quarterly.
	As the right hon. Lady noted, we passed the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 in November of that year. The biggest overhaul of domestic violence legislation for 30 years, that Act gives tough new powers to the police and the courts to tackle offenders, while ensuring that victims get the support and protection that they need. We hope that that protection will help people across the country, including in the Thames Valley area.
	The 2004 Act gives greater protection to victims and children, and encourages them to stand up for their right to live without fear of violence. The measures that it contains have been rolling out in stages since March 2005.
	I turn now to the specific concerns about Thames Valley police expressed by the right hon. Lady. I should like to reassure the House that that force have initiated a fundamental overhaul of their policies and procedures in response to domestic violence cases. The Thames Valley police domestic violence project is nearing completion; the main changes have been implemented and the force is consolidating the improvements in its routine business. After some of the awful things that we have seen and that she highlighted, I hope that lessons have been learned and I trust that such initiatives offer some comfort and reassurance.
	The improvements include the establishment of public protection units throughout Thames Valley police. Those specialist units focus on protecting communities from the most dangerous offenders and provide expertise in cases involving the most vulnerable members of our society. The force's existing domestic violence units have been incorporated in the public protection units and augmented with additional investment and resources. Specialist domestic violence officers now review all domestic violence incidents.
	A comprehensive structured risk assessment process has been implemented. All operational officers have received training in identifying domestic violence cases and in the use of the risk indicator tool to assist their investigation and management of the case. Every case is assessed by a specialist domestic violence unit officer to ensure that high-risk cases are identified earlya point made by the right hon. Ladyand given added priority and resources.
	We need to ensure that action on stalking is included in those procedures. The right hon. Lady asked about guidance in such cases. The Association of Chief Police Officers has issued police forces with guidance on harassment, which includes stalking, so the right hon. Lady can be reassured about that issue.
	The changes in the Thames Valley force are part of a much wider overhaul that has been instigated in all police forces. In November 2004, ACPO issued comprehensive guidance to all forces in England and Wales, including Thames Valley, about the investigation of domestic violence cases, including Thames Valley. The accompanying training programme covers identification and flagging of cases of domestic violence by the police; officer response at the scene of the incident to protect victims and to gather evidence; managing the investigation and building a prosecution case; protecting the victim as the case progresses through the criminal justice system; and how to engage effectively in multi-agency working. I was most interested in the information from America provided by a relative of the family about multi-agency working. Perhaps the right hon. Lady and I could discuss that further when we meet. The police alone cannot tackle domestic violence; it requires a partnership response, although I am very aware that turning those words into reality is something else again.

Theresa May: Before I comment on that point, I apologise to the Minister for not welcoming him to his new post in the Home Office.
	The San Diego experience is one of the interesting points that I should like to discuss with the Minister. The scheme was set up on a voluntary basis and has managed to get around many of the administrative barriers that can get in the way of a multi-agency approach, which then fails to operate properly, as the Minister said.

Vernon Coaker: I thank the right hon. Lady for her welcome. We can certainly discuss the issue she raises. I am well aware that bureaucracy sometimes gets in the way of service delivery and in cases such as these we need to make sure that what we say in an office translates into reality on the ground for people who suffer, or may suffer, domestic violence.
	The training programme that I outlined is a major initiative in each police force area, including Thames Valley, and a target has been set to ensure that every operational officer in every police force in England and Wales will be a graduate of the programme by 2008. To complement it, every new recruit in every force will be trained about domestic violence as part of their mandatory training, as they have been since April 2005. Again, Thames Valley is obviously included in that programme. Such training is crucial to changing the culturechanging awareness and attitudes. All those things are important and will take longer than a training programme, but the programme is vital none the less.
	I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) is present in the Chamber. She has also taken a keen interest in these matters, including when she was a Home Office Minister, and we are building on much of the work in which she was involved.
	Every police force in England and Wales now also has a domestic violence co-ordinatorso the Thames Valley police will have such a co-ordinator as well. That illustrates the fact that the Government and the police recognise that domestic violence is a serious crime that needs to be policed rigorously and effectively, but our commitment to tackling domestic violence does not stop there. To ensure that we capitalise on the improved policing policy, the Crown Prosecution Service has also created a domestic violence training pack for all its prosecutors. It, too, has set a target of having all prosecutors trained on the programme by 2008 and every CPS area, including Thames Valley, now has a domestic violence co-ordinator.
	Last year, to strengthen the role of the criminal justice system further, the Government announced the development of 25 specialist domestic violence court systems, which will be in place by April 2006so they are obviously just in place. There will now be at least one specialist domestic violence court area in every region of the countryobviously, including the Thames valley. In this context, specialist courts are not just about the practice of courts and their procedures; neither are they about tangible changes being made to existing courthouses: it is an approach that situates the court system and the criminal justice system as part of a community-wide response to domestic violence. Clearly, such arrangements may cover parts of the Thames Valley area.
	I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maidenhead on initiating the debate. I am very happy to meet her to discuss what is clearly an issue of importance not just in the Thames Valley area but in the whole country and something about which we, as a country, need to do more. This was a terrible case; we must learn the lessons from it. Thames Valley police, as well as all other forces, have reviewed their procedures, and we must all hope that, in so far as possible, such tragedies are avoided in the future. I thank the right hon. Lady again for raising the issue; I am sure that we all need to do something more about it.
	 The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker  adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	 Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Eight o'clock.

Deferred Division

Conventions (Joint Committee)

That the Lords Message [25 April] relating to Conventions be now considered.
	That this House concurs with the Lords in the said Resolution;
	That, accepting the primacy of the House of Commons, a Select Committee of 11 Members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the House of Lords as the Joint Committee on Conventions, to consider the practicality of codifying the key conventions on the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament which affect the consideration of legislation, in particular.
	(A) The Salisbury-Addison convention that the Lords does not vote against measures included in the governing party's Manifesto;
	(B) conventions on secondary legislation;
	(C) the convention that Government business in the Lords should be considered in reasonable time;
	(D) conventions governing the exchange of amendments to legislation between the two Houses; and that the Committee should report by Friday 21 July 2006;
	That the Committee should have power
	(i) To send for persons, papers and records;
	(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	(iii) to report from time to time;
	(iv) to appoint specialist advisers;
	(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom; and
	That Mr. Russell Brown, Mr. Wayne David, Mr. George Howarth, Simon Hughes, Sarah McCarthy-Fry, Andrew Miller, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Mr. John Spellar, Ms Gisela Stuart, Mr. Andrew Tyrie and Sir Nicholas Winterton be Members of the Committee.
	 The House divided: Ayes 416, Noes 20.

Question accordingly agreed to.